AMD Radeon R5 M435 vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

NVIDIA’s RTX A400 and AMD’s Radeon R5 M435 occupy opposite ends of the GPU spectrum, separated by eight years of architecture design and a fundamental difference in market positioning. The data shows a decisive performance gap, but the comparison reveals more than raw speed: it highlights how node shrinks, feature sets, and memory subsystems define a product’s place in the benchmark hierarchy.

FAQ

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 averages 6078 points, while the AMD Radeon R5 M435 averages 5859 points, a relative difference of approximately 3.7%.

Q: Which GPU has the higher percentile ranking among all GPUs?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 sits at the 35th percentile, two points above the Radeon R5 M435, which ranks at the 33rd percentile.

Q: In the single shared benchmark test, what is the performance gap?

A: In Geekbench OpenCL, the RTX A400 scores 22844 against the R5 M435’s 5859, resulting in a 289.9% advantage for the NVIDIA part.

Q: How do the memory configurations compare?

A: The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the R5 M435 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus, yielding 36.00 GB/s.

Q: What is the production status of each GPU?

A: The RTX A400 is marked as Active, having been released in April 2024, while the R5 M435 is End-of-life, released in May 2016.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor count and larger die?

A: The RTX A400 packs 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, compared to the R5 M435’s 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a clear picture: the RTX A400 wins the only head-to-head benchmark available, taking the Geekbench OpenCL test with a 289.9% margin. Beyond that single result, the benchmark suite shows the NVIDIA card dominates across every category where both have scores. The RTX A400 posts 22844 in Geekbench OpenCL and 22237 in Geekbench Vulkan, demonstrating strong compute and graphics API performance. Its Passmark G3D score of 5983 and G2D score of 899 further establish its lead in both 3D rendering and 2D desktop workloads.

The Radeon R5 M435 has only one recorded benchmark score — 5859 in Geekbench OpenCL. This absence of additional data points limits its case, but even its sole result trails the RTX A400’s OpenCL score by nearly four times. Where the R5 M435 might claim relevance is in legacy scenarios: it supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and OpenGL 4.6, but lacks the RTX A400’s DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4 support. For users tied to older software stacks, the R5 M435’s GCN 1.0 architecture remains functional, but the performance data offers no scenario where it outpaces the newer NVIDIA part.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two GPUs is vast. The RTX A400 is built on NVIDIA’s Ampere architecture using Samsung’s 8 nm process, packing 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die. The R5 M435 relies on AMD’s GCN 1.0 architecture on TSMC’s 28 nm node, with just 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die. This translates to a transistor density of 43.5M per mm² for the RTX A400 versus 12.3M per mm² for the R5 M435 — a 3.5-fold density advantage for the newer chip.

The RTX A400 includes dedicated hardware that the R5 M435 lacks entirely: 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores. These features enable modern rendering techniques and AI-accelerated workloads, neither of which the GCN 1.0-based R5 M435 can support. The shader configuration also differs substantially: the RTX A400 has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, while the R5 M435 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. The NVIDIA part’s 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 throughput dwarfs the AMD card’s 659.2 GFLOPS, a difference of roughly 4.1 times.

Memory technology marks another generational leap. The RTX A400 uses GDDR6 at 12 Gbps effective, achieving 96.00 GB/s over a 64-bit bus, while the R5 M435 uses GDDR5 at 4.5 Gbps effective, capped at 36.00 GB/s. The RTX A400 also doubles the memory capacity to 4 GB, a critical factor for modern workloads. Process node differences alone — 8 nm versus 28 nm — explain much of the efficiency gap, but the architectural additions of ray tracing and tensor cores make the RTX A400 a fundamentally different class of processor.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights the disparities clearly. The RTX A400 operates at a base clock of 1417 MHz and boosts to 1762 MHz, while the R5 M435 runs at 780 MHz base and 1030 MHz boost. The NVIDIA card’s pixel rate of 28.19 GPixel/s and texture rate of 42.29 GTexel/s far exceed the R5 M435’s 8.240 GPixel/s and 20.60 GTexel/s, respectively.

Power and physical design differ sharply. The RTX A400 draws a 50 W TDP and requires no power connectors, fitting into a single-slot 163 mm by 69 mm profile. The R5 M435 is an IGP (integrated graphics processor) with no listed TDP, no power connectors, and no dimensions, as it is soldered to portable devices. The bus interface also differs: PCIe 4.0 x8 for the RTX A400 versus PCIe 3.0 x8 for the R5 M435, offering double the bandwidth potential on compatible platforms.

Display outputs reinforce the workstation versus mobile split. The RTX A400 provides 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs, enabling multi-monitor professional setups, while the R5 M435’s outputs are listed as "Portable Device Dependent," meaning they vary by the laptop or device it is integrated into. API support also diverges: the RTX A400 supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R5 M435 tops out at DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. The RTX A400 also offers FP16 at 1:1 ratio with 2.706 TFLOPS, a feature the R5 M435 does not list.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The only direct benchmark comparison available is Geekbench OpenCL, and the result is lopsided. The RTX A400 scores 22844, while the R5 M435 manages 5859, yielding a delta of 289.9% in favor of NVIDIA. This is not a marginal win; it represents a near-fourfold increase in compute throughput, consistent with the raw specification differences in FP32 performance, memory bandwidth, and shading unit count.

Looking at the nearestRivals data for each card places this gap in context. The RTX A400’s average score of 6078 puts it in the same tier as the GeForce MX230 (6077), Quadro P2000 (6049), and Radeon 760M (6019), with deltas within 1% of each. The R5 M435’s 5859 average aligns it with the Radeon R7 M465 (5841), UHD Graphics 730 (5929), and Quadro K620M (5957), showing it sits slightly below the RTX A400’s nearest competitors. The percentile rankings — 35th for the RTX A400, 33rd for the R5 M435 — confirm that while both are near the lower-middle of the GPU population, the NVIDIA part holds a consistent edge.

Within the RTX A400’s own benchmark suite, the Passmark results show a mixed profile: G3D at 5983, G2D at 899, and GPU Compute at 2557. These scores indicate the card is more capable in 3D rendering than in compute-heavy tasks, a typical pattern for entry-level workstation parts. The R5 M435’s single OpenCL score of 5859, when compared to the RTX A400’s 22844, suggests the AMD card would struggle with modern compute workloads, though its lack of additional benchmark data makes broader conclusions speculative. The wins tally — 1 win for the RTX A400, 0 for the R5 M435 — reflects the available evidence, but the magnitude of the OpenCL victory alone settles the performance question.