AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear hierarchy between the AMD Radeon R5 M435 and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M. The NVIDIA part is the decisive winner in the single shared benchmark, leveraging a substantially larger GPU to deliver a significant performance advantage. The AMD Radeon R5 M435, while a more modern design, is positioned as a lower-tier entry-point part and its benchmark results reflect that status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only directly comparable data point between these two mobile graphics processors is the Geekbench OpenCL test. In this compute-focused workload, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 7176, which is 18.4% higher than the AMD Radeon R5 M435's score of 5859. This is a decisive victory for the NVIDIA part, indicating that its larger execution resources translate directly into superior raw compute throughput.

The scale of this lead is notable. An 18.4% delta in a single benchmark is not a marginal difference; it represents a clear generational and architectural gap in raw compute capability. The GTX 765M's advantage stems from its much larger configuration, which will be detailed in the specification section. This result positions the NVIDIA GPU as the stronger option for any task that leverages OpenCL acceleration.

For the AMD Radeon R5 M435, the data reveals a different story. Its score of 5859 places it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals, including the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841) and the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929). The M435 is essentially on par with these parts, trailing the Intel integrated solution by a mere 1.2% and the R7 M465 by only 0.3%. This shows that while it is not a top performer, it is not an outlier on the low end either; it sits squarely in a competitive mid-low tier of mobile graphics solutions.

In contrast, the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M's score of 7176 puts it in a different performance bracket. Its nearest rivals, such as the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 (5508) and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483), are significantly behind it. The GTX 765M is 30.3% ahead of the MX130 and 30.9% ahead of the R7 M440, demonstrating that it was a higher-tier part in its era, outperforming many of the mainstream options that would follow it. This context is crucial: the GTX 765M is not just beating the R5 M435; it is outperforming a whole class of newer, low-power GPUs.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in the Geekbench OpenCL benchmark?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is faster, scoring 7176 compared to the AMD Radeon R5 M435's 5859. This represents an 18.4% performance advantage for the NVIDIA GPU.

Q: How does the AMD Radeon R5 M435 compare to its closest rivals?

A: The data shows it is very competitive within its immediate segment. It is 0.3% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 M465 and just 1.6% slower than both the AMD Radeon HD 8730M and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M. It also trails the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 1.2%.

Q: What is the performance context for the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M?

A: The GTX 765M is a clear over-performer relative to its nearest rivals. It is 30.3% faster than the NVIDIA GeForce MX130 and 30.9% faster than the AMD Radeon R7 M440, indicating it was a significantly more powerful part than many of its direct successors in the low-power segment.

Q: Do these GPUs have the same number of shading units?

A: No. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has 768 shading units, which is 2.4 times the 320 shading units found in the AMD Radeon R5 M435. This is a fundamental hardware difference that explains the performance gap.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each GPU?

A: The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M has a 128-bit memory bus, providing a bandwidth of 64.13 GB/s. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 has a 64-bit bus, providing a significantly lower bandwidth of 36.00 GB/s.

Q: Which GPU has a smaller manufacturing process?

A: Both GPUs are manufactured on the same 28 nm process node at TSMC. There is no difference in this regard.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M for users seeking raw performance. Its 18.4% lead in the OpenCL benchmark is the single most important metric here, and it is backed by a hardware configuration that is superior in nearly every measurable way. The GTX 765M is the clear choice for any application that can utilize its compute power, such as gaming or GPU-accelerated content creation.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is the appropriate choice only if the specific system it is integrated into is the primary factor. Its performance, while adequate for basic tasks, is firmly in the entry-level tier. The benchmark data shows it is competitive with other low-end parts like the Intel UHD Graphics 730, but it simply does not have the execution resources to compete with the GTX 765M. A user should only consider the R5 M435 if it is the only option available in a desired laptop and their workload is light.

Specification Differences

The core specifications tell the story of a massive gulf in hardware resources. The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is built on a much larger scale than the AMD Radeon R5 M435.

• Shading Units: 768 vs 320
• Texture Mapping Units: 64 vs 20
• Render Output Units: 16 vs 8
• Memory Bus Width: 128 bit vs 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: 64.13 GB/s vs 36.00 GB/s
• Pixel Rate: 13.81 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 55.23 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s
• FP32 Performance: 1,325.6 GFLOPS vs 659.2 GFLOPS
• Thermal Design Power: 75 W vs not specified
• Slot Width: MXM Module vs IGP
• Bus Interface: MXM-B (3.0) vs PCIe 3.0 x8

These differences are not minor tweaks. The GTX 765M has more than double the shading units, three times the texture mapping units, and double the render output units and memory bus width. This leads to a 79.9% advantage in FP32 compute, a 67.6% advantage in pixel fill rate, and a 62.7% advantage in texture fill rate. The GTX 765M is a substantially more powerful processor on paper, and the benchmark results confirm this.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is based on the GCN 1.0 architecture using the Jet chip, while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M uses the Kepler architecture with the GK106 chip.

The most profound difference is in the physical size and complexity of the silicon. The GTX 765M's GK106 chip contains 2,540 million transistors on a 221 mm² die. In contrast, the R5 M435's Jet chip is far smaller, containing just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This means the NVIDIA GPU has roughly 3.7 times the transistor count and a die that is nearly four times larger.

This difference in scale directly explains the performance gap. The GTX 765M has the physical resources to house its 768 shading units and 64 TMUs, while the R5 M435's smaller chip is limited to 320 shaders and 20 TMUs. Interestingly, the transistor density is slightly higher on the AMD chip (12.3M / mm²) compared to the NVIDIA chip (11.5M / mm²), but this does not compensate for the massive difference in total transistor count.

There are also differences in the supported API feature levels. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 supports DirectX 12 (11_1), while the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M supports DirectX 12 (11_0). Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan, though the NVIDIA GPU has a slightly newer Vulkan version (1.2.175 vs 1.2.170). These are minor differences in software feature support, with the hardware capability being the dominant factor in performance.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data and specifications create a clear separation of use cases.

The NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M is the winner for: Any task that demands graphical or compute performance. Its 18.4% lead in the OpenCL benchmark, combined with its significantly higher pixel rate (13.81 GPixel/s) and texture rate (55.23 GTexel/s), makes it the clear choice for gaming, 3D rendering, and video editing. The 64.13 GB/s of memory bandwidth is also more than sufficient for feeding its 768 shaders in these workloads. It is a discrete, MXM-based solution designed for performance.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 is the winner for: The niche scenario where power consumption and system integration are the absolute priority. As an IGP (Integrated Graphics Processor) with no specified TDP, it is designed to be a low-power, space-saving solution for thin and light laptops. It wins on the basis of its physical design, not its performance. Its 36.00 GB/s of bandwidth and 659.2 GFLOPS of compute are sufficient for basic desktop usage, video playback, and very light, non-demanding games. It is the appropriate part for a system where the GTX 765M's 75 W TDP and MXM module form factor would be unacceptable.