
HD Graphics 520

Radeon R5 M435
HD Graphics 520 vs Radeon R5 M435 Performance Spectrum
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
HD Graphics 520 vs Radeon R5 M435 FPS Benchmarks
Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.
Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends
HD Graphics 520 vs Radeon R5 M435: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict
See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.
HD Graphics 520
2015Why buy it
- ✅Costs $50 less on MSRP ($100 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
- ✅Delivers 50.2% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 8.6 vs 5.7 G3D/$ ($100 MSRP vs $150 MSRP).
- ✅Draws 15W instead of 75W, a 60W reduction.
Trade-offs
- ❌Less VRAM, with Unknown vs 512 MB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
- ❌2015 hardware with Unknown of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
Radeon R5 M435
2016Why buy it
- ✅100+% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (512 MB vs Unknown).
- ✅HD Graphics 520 is already obsolete for modern gaming, so Radeon R5 M435 is the less risky modern option long term.
- ✅More future proof: GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) on 28nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.
Trade-offs
- ❌2016 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
- ❌50% HIGHER MSRP$150 MSRPvs$100 MSRP
- ❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 5.7 vs 8.6 G3D/$ ($150 MSRP vs $100 MSRP).
- ❌400% higher power demand at 75W vs 15W.
Quick Answers
Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?
Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?
Which GPU is the better buy today?
HD Graphics 520 vs Radeon R5 M435 Technical Specifications
Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

HD Graphics 520
The HD Graphics 520 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in September 1 2015. It features the Generation 9.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 300 MHz to 900 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 14 nm+ process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 861 points.

Radeon R5 M435
The Radeon R5 M435 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 15 2016. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 780 MHz to 1030 MHz. It has 320 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 75W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 860 points.
Graphics Performance
The HD Graphics 520 scores 861 and the Radeon R5 M435 reaches 860 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The HD Graphics 520 is built on Generation 9.0 while the Radeon R5 M435 uses GCN 1.0, both on 14 nm+ vs 28 nm. Shader units: 192 (HD Graphics 520) vs 320 (Radeon R5 M435). Raw compute: 0.3456 TFLOPS (HD Graphics 520) vs 0.6592 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 M435). Boost clocks: 900 MHz vs 1030 MHz.
| Feature | HD Graphics 520 | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 861 | 860 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm+ | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 192 | 320+67% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.3456 TFLOPS | 0.6592 TFLOPS+91% |
| Boost Clock | 900 MHz | 1030 MHz+14% |
| ROPs | 3 | 8+167% |
| TMUs | 24+20% | 20 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | HD Graphics 520 | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | Upscaling support | FSR Upscaling / FSR 4 |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The HD Graphics 520 has 0 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon R5 M435 carries 512 MB. Radeon R5 M435 gives you 100+% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is System on the HD Graphics 520 and 128-bit on the Radeon R5 M435.
| Feature | HD Graphics 520 | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | Shared System RAM | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | Shared | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | System | Unknown |
| Bus Width | System | 128-bit |
Power & Dimensions
The HD Graphics 520 draws 15W versus the Radeon R5 M435's 75W — a 133.3% difference. The HD Graphics 520 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 1W (HD Graphics 520) vs 350W (Radeon R5 M435). Power connectors: Integrated vs Mobile.
| Feature | HD Graphics 520 | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 15W-80% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 1W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | Integrated | Mobile |
| Perf/Watt | 57.4+399% | 11.5 |
Value Analysis
At launch, the HD Graphics 520 came in at $100, while the Radeon R5 M435 launched at $150. On MSRP, HD Graphics 520 was 33.3% cheaper ($50 less). Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 8.6 (HD Graphics 520) vs 5.7 (Radeon R5 M435) — the HD Graphics 520 offers 50.9% better value. The newer card here is Radeon R5 M435 (2016 vs 2015).
| Feature | HD Graphics 520 | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-33% | $150 |
| Performance per Dollar | 8.6+51% | 5.7 |
| Codename | Skylake GT2 | Jet |
| Release | September 1 2015 | May 15 2016 |
| Ranking | #929 | #922 |
Affiliate Disclosure
ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.
Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.













