AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA GeForce MX230 Comparison

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 and AMD Radeon R5 M435 are both end-of-life mobile graphics solutions aimed at entry-level laptops, but the benchmark data reveals a closer contest than their generational differences might suggest. The AMD part edges out the NVIDIA chip in the only directly comparable test, yet the NVIDIA GPU holds advantages in architectural efficiency and API support that shift the recommendation depending on the workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sole direct comparison available is the Geekbench OpenCL test, and the results are remarkably tight. The AMD Radeon R5 M435 scores 5859 points, while the NVIDIA GeForce MX230 scores 5739 points, yielding a 2% advantage for the AMD part. This is a narrow margin that falls well within the noise of real-world driver and thermal variations, but it does represent a clear, if small, victory for the older AMD architecture in raw compute throughput.

Looking at the broader context, the MX230’s average benchmark score of 6077 places it just one point behind the NVIDIA RTX A400 (6078) and 28 points ahead of the Quadro P2000 (6049). This indicates the MX230 is performing at a level consistent with professional-grade workstation GPUs from a higher tier, despite its entry-level positioning. The R5 M435’s average score of 5859 sits just 18 points above the AMD Radeon R7 M465 (5841) and 70 points below the Intel UHD Graphics 730 (5929), showing it competes with integrated graphics from newer generations.

The delta percentages in the nearest rival data reinforce this picture. The MX230 trails the Intel Iris Pro Graphics 6200 by just 0.7% (6117 vs 6077) and leads the AMD Radeon 760M by 1% (6019 vs 6077). The R5 M435 leads the R7 M465 by 0.3% (5841 vs 5859) but falls behind the Intel UHD Graphics 730 by 1.2% (5929 vs 5859) and the NVIDIA Quadro K620M by 1.6% (5957 vs 5859). These margins are all sub-2%, underscoring that both GPUs sit in a performance band where minor clock or driver optimizations can flip the ranking.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 wins the only head-to-head benchmark, the Geekbench OpenCL test, by 2%. This suggests a slight edge in general-purpose compute workloads that leverage OpenCL, which could translate to better performance in applications that offload parallel tasks to the GPU. The R5 M435 also has a higher raw shading unit count, with 320 units versus the MX230’s 256, which likely contributes to its compute advantage despite its lower clock speeds.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 wins no direct benchmark comparisons, but its architectural advantages point to strengths in other areas. Its 14 nm process node, versus the R5 M435’s 28 nm node, allows for significantly higher clock speeds: 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost for the MX230, compared to 780 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost for the R5 M435. This clock advantage drives a higher pixel rate (24.50 GPixel/s vs 8.240 GPixel/s) and texture rate (24.50 GTexel/s vs 20.60 GTexel/s), which are critical for fill-rate-bound scenarios like high-resolution texture rendering and simple 3D scenes.

The MX230 also supports Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M435 tops out at Vulkan 1.2.170. For games or applications built on newer Vulkan features, the NVIDIA part has a compatibility edge that the benchmark scores do not capture. Similarly, the MX230 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), while the R5 M435 is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1), meaning the NVIDIA GPU can handle more advanced DirectX 12 features like conservative rasterization and rasterizer-ordered views.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from fundamentally different design philosophies. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 is built on the Pascal architecture using the GP108 chip, manufactured on a 14 nm process at Samsung. It packs 1,800 million transistors into a 74 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 24.3 million per square millimeter. This high-density, modern-node design allows for exceptional energy efficiency, with a TDP of just 10 W.

The AMD Radeon R5 M435 uses the older GCN 1.0 architecture with the Jet chip, fabricated on a 28 nm process at TSMC. It contains only 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, resulting in a transistor density of 12.3 million per square millimeter. This is roughly half the density of the NVIDIA chip, highlighting the generational gap in manufacturing technology. The GCN 1.0 architecture, first introduced in 2012, lacks many of the modern features found in Pascal, such as simultaneous multi-projection and improved asynchronous compute.

The memory subsystems are similar on paper — both use 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus — but the actual bandwidth differs. The MX230’s memory runs at 1502 MHz (6 Gbps effective), yielding 48.06 GB/s of bandwidth. The R5 M435’s memory runs at 1125 MHz (4.5 Gbps effective), providing only 36.00 GB/s. This 25% bandwidth deficit for the AMD part could hurt in texture-heavy games or applications that stream large datasets through the GPU.

The compute resources are distributed differently. The R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 raster operation units. The MX230 has fewer shading units (256) and texture units (16), but doubles the ROP count to 16. This higher ROP count, combined with the much higher pixel rate, gives the NVIDIA GPU a clear advantage in pixel fill operations, which are crucial for anti-aliasing and high-resolution rendering.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two GPUs are stark, reflecting their different release timelines. The NVIDIA GeForce MX230 was released on February 20, 2019, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 came out on May 14, 2016. This nearly three-year gap is evident in the process technology: 14 nm for NVIDIA versus 28 nm for AMD.

Clock speeds show the largest divergence. The MX230 runs at 1519 MHz base and 1531 MHz boost, while the R5 M435 runs at 780 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. This is a 95% higher base clock for the NVIDIA part. The memory clock also differs, with the MX230 at 1502 MHz versus the R5 M435’s 1125 MHz.

The compute outputs reflect these clock differences. The MX230 produces 783.9 GFLOPS of FP32 performance, compared to 659.2 GFLOPS for the R5 M435, a 19% advantage. The pixel rate is 24.50 GPixel/s versus 8.240 GPixel/s, a nearly 3x difference. The texture rate is 24.50 GTexel/s versus 20.60 GTexel/s, a narrower 19% gap.

The bus interface also differs: the MX230 uses PCIe 3.0 x4, while the R5 M435 uses PCIe 3.0 x8. This means the AMD part has double the PCIe bandwidth available, which could matter for data transfer from system memory in some compute workloads, though the practical impact is often limited for entry-level mobile GPUs.

The FP16 capability is another differentiator. The MX230 supports FP16 at 12.25 GFLOPS with a 1:64 ratio, indicating a limited implementation. The R5 M435 has no listed FP16 support, meaning it likely relies on FP32 emulation for half-precision workloads.

The Verdict

From the data, the AMD Radeon R5 M435 wins the only direct benchmark comparison, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test by 2%. Its higher shading unit count and larger PCIe bus width give it a slight edge in raw compute throughput, making it the better choice for OpenCL-accelerated applications like video encoding, physics simulation, or data processing tasks that leverage the GPU for general-purpose computation.

The NVIDIA GeForce MX230, however, offers several advantages that the benchmark scores do not fully capture. Its 14 nm process node delivers dramatically higher clock speeds, which translate to a 3x advantage in pixel rate and a 19% advantage in texture rate. This makes it the stronger choice for traditional 3D rendering, where fill rates and texture throughput directly impact frame rates. The MX230 also supports newer API versions — Vulkan 1.4 versus 1.2.170, and DirectX 12 (12_1) versus 12 (11_1) — ensuring compatibility with modern games and applications that require these features.

The transistor density difference is telling: 24.3M / mm² for the MX230 versus 12.3M / mm² for the R5 M435. This indicates a far more advanced manufacturing process, which typically translates to better power efficiency. The MX230’s 10 W TDP, while the R5 M435 has no listed TDP, suggests the NVIDIA part is designed for sustained performance in thin-and-light laptops without thermal throttling.

The average benchmark scores put the MX230 at 6077 versus 5859 for the R5 M435, a 3.6% gap in favor of NVIDIA. The MX230’s percentile rank of 35 versus 33 for the R5 M435 further confirms this slight overall performance edge. For a user who prioritizes backward compatibility and OpenCL compute, the R5 M435 is the data-backed choice. For anyone running modern games, using Vulkan-based applications, or needing higher fill rates, the MX230 is the superior option despite losing the single head-to-head test. The choice ultimately comes down to workload, with the NVIDIA part offering a more future-proof feature set and the AMD part providing a narrow compute win.