AMD Radeon Vega 3 vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M Comparison

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the AMD Radeon Vega 3 than the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M in OpenCL?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 3963 in Geekbench OpenCL, while the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M scores 3740. That gives the AMD part a 6% lead in this specific workload.

Q: Which GPU has a higher overall benchmark average?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 averages 4268 across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 25th percentile of all GPUs. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M averages 3740, which sits in the 22nd percentile.

Q: Does the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M support Vulkan?

A: No. The database lists Vulkan as null for the GT 635M, and its DirectX support is capped at 12 (11_0). The AMD Radeon Vega 3 supports Vulkan 1.3 and DirectX 12 (12_1).

Q: What memory configuration does each GPU use?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 uses system-shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU has a higher transistor density?

A: The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is built on a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries with 4,940 million transistors on a 210 mm² die, yielding 23.5M transistors per mm². The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M uses a 40 nm TSMC process with 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, giving 5.0M transistors per mm².

Q: Are these GPUs still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 was released in November 2019, and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M was released in March 2012.

The Verdict

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the stronger pick for anyone who needs general compute performance and modern API support. Its average benchmark score of 4268 beats the GT 635M's 3740 by roughly 14%. In the only shared test, Geekbench OpenCL, the Vega 3 wins by 6% (3963 vs 3740). It also supports Vulkan 1.3, while the GT 635M has no Vulkan support at all, and its DirectX feature level is newer (12_1 vs 11_0).

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M is not without reason to exist. It has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 memory on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth, which can be an advantage in scenarios where system-shared memory on the AMD side creates contention. However, the data shows the AMD part wins the only head-to-head benchmark available.

For a new build or an upgrade path, the Vega 3's 15 W TDP versus the GT 635M's 35 W TDP makes it far more efficient for thin-and-light systems. The GT 635M belongs to an older generation (GeForce 600M, Fermi architecture) and is clearly outclassed in raw compute. The verdict is straightforward: choose the AMD Radeon Vega 3 for performance and API compatibility, choose the GT 635M only if you specifically need its dedicated memory pool and have no Vulkan requirements.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records exactly one benchmark where both GPUs appear: Geekbench OpenCL. Here, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 scores 3963 against the NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M's 3740, a 6% difference. That is a meaningful margin in compute workloads, especially considering both are entry-level mobile parts.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the AMD part also has Geekbench Metal (4880) and Geekbench Vulkan (3961) results, while the GT 635M only has an OpenCL score. This means the Vega 3 can be evaluated across three API-specific tests, and its average of 4268 reflects that breadth. The GT 635M's average of 3740 comes from a single data point, which limits the comparison.

In terms of closest rivals, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 sits near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460M (4282, only 0.3% behind) and the AMD FirePro W2100 (4295, 0.6% behind). It edges out the NVIDIA Quadro K3000M (4241) by 0.6%. The NVIDIA GeForce RTX 4070 GDDR6 (4335) is 1.5% ahead, which puts the Vega 3 in surprisingly competitive company for an integrated part.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M, by contrast, has closest rivals that are all within a narrow band: the NVIDIA Quadro 3000M (3718) is 0.6% behind, the NVIDIA GeForce GT 740M (3717) is 0.6% behind, and the NVIDIA GeForce 825M (3694) is 1.2% behind. The Intel UHD Graphics 710 (3792) is 1.4% ahead. This clustering suggests the GT 635M is right at the bottom of the performance tier, with no significant wins over any direct competitor.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference is in raw compute resources. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 has 192 shading units, 12 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs. The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M has 96 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. The Vega 3 has double the shader count, which explains its higher FP32 throughput: 422.4 GFLOPS versus 182.4 GFLOPS. The GT 635M has more TMUs, but that does not compensate for the shader deficit.

Pixel and texture rates follow the same pattern. The AMD part achieves 4.400 GPixel/s and 13.20 GTexel/s, while the NVIDIA part manages 1.900 GPixel/s and 7.600 GTexel/s. The Vega 3 is roughly 2.3x faster in pixel fill and 1.7x faster in texture fill.

Memory is where the GT 635M has a structural advantage. It has 2 GB of dedicated DDR3 on a 128-bit bus with 28.80 GB/s of bandwidth. The AMD Radeon Vega 3 relies on system-shared memory with bandwidth that is "system dependent," meaning its performance varies with the host platform's RAM configuration.

The TDP gap is significant: 15 W for the Vega 3 versus 35 W for the GT 635M. Both are integrated into the motherboard or portable device, with no power connectors required. The bus interface differs as well: the Vega 3 uses an IGP connection, while the GT 635M uses PCIe 2.0 x16.

API support is another clear separator. The AMD part supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.3. The NVIDIA part supports DirectX 12 (11_0) and OpenGL 4.6, but Vulkan is listed as null. For modern games and compute applications that leverage Vulkan, the GT 635M is simply not an option.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 is built on the GCN 5.0 architecture, specifically the Picasso chip, using a 12 nm process at GlobalFoundries. It packs 4,940 million transistors into a 210 mm² die, achieving a transistor density of 23.5M per mm². This is a modern, high-density design that allows for substantial compute resources in a low-power envelope.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M uses the Fermi architecture with the GF108 chip, manufactured on a 40 nm process at TSMC. It has 585 million transistors on a 116 mm² die, giving a transistor density of just 5.0M per mm². The Fermi architecture dates back to 2010, and the 40 nm node is several generations behind the 12 nm process used by AMD.

The difference in transistor count is enormous: 4,940 million versus 585 million, a factor of roughly 8.4x. Even accounting for the larger die size (210 mm² vs 116 mm²), the Vega 3 has far more compute resources per square millimeter. This is why the AMD part can deliver 422.4 GFLOPS of FP32 performance while drawing only 15 W, compared to the GT 635M's 182.4 GFLOPS at 35 W.

The Vega 3 supports FP16 with a 2:1 ratio (844.8 GFLOPS), which the GT 635M does not support at all. This is relevant for machine learning inference and certain media workloads that can use half-precision arithmetic.

The GT 635M belongs to the GeForce 600M generation, with its predecessor being the GeForce 500M and successor being the GeForce 700M. The Vega 3's generation is "Vega IGP (Picasso)," with a predecessor of GCN 3.0 IGP and successor of Vega II IGP. The release dates confirm the generational gap: the GT 635M launched in March 2012, while the Vega 3 arrived in November 2019, over seven years later.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon Vega 3 wins in every recorded benchmark comparison. In Geekbench OpenCL, it takes the 6% victory. Its additional Metal and Vulkan scores (4880 and 3961, respectively) show that it can handle multiple modern compute APIs, making it a better choice for applications that use Apple's Metal or cross-platform Vulkan.

The Vega 3's strengths are in compute-heavy tasks: shader processing, FP32 throughput, and fill rates. With 192 shading units and 422.4 GFLOPS, it is roughly 2.3x faster than the GT 635M in raw math. Its 12 nm process and 15 W TDP make it suitable for ultraportable laptops where battery life and thermals are priorities.

The NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M's only advantage is its dedicated memory. With 2 GB of DDR3 on a 128-bit bus, it avoids the performance variability of system-shared memory. In scenarios where the host system has slow or low-capacity RAM, the GT 635M could offer more consistent frame pacing in older games or memory-bound workloads. Its higher TDP (35 W) also suggests it might sustain clocks better under load, though the database does not record boost clocks for this part.

For practical use, the AMD Radeon Vega 3 is the better choice for anyone running current software that supports Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate features. The GT 635M is only relevant for legacy applications that predate Vulkan and where dedicated VRAM is essential. If you are building or upgrading a system today, the Vega 3's benchmark lead, modern API support, and lower power draw make it the clear winner. The data does not support any scenario where the GT 635M outperforms the Vega 3 in measured workloads.