Quadro 2000M vs Radeon R5 435

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.

Quadro 2000M vs Radeon R5 435 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.

Quadro 2000M vs Radeon R5 435: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

Quadro 2000M

2015

Why buy it

✅68.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (2 GB vs 512 MB).

Trade-offs

❌2015 hardware with 2 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 9.5 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $80 MSRP).
❌83.3% higher power demand at 55W vs 30W.

Radeon R5 435

2016

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 9.5 vs 0 G3D/$ ($80 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅Draws 30W instead of 55W, a 25W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Quadro 2000M across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 2 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2016 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Quadro 2000M is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 68.4% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward Radeon R5 435 instead at 762 vs 758, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

Quadro 2000M is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 2 GB vs 512 MB of VRAM. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon R5 435 makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon R5 435 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, Quadro 2000M has the stronger long-term case.

Quadro 2000M vs Radeon R5 435 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Quadro 2000M

The Quadro 2000M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in December 3 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 1029 MHz to 1098 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 758 points.

Radeon R5 435

The Radeon R5 435 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 30W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 762 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The Quadro 2000M scores 758 and the Radeon R5 435 reaches 762 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Quadro 2000M is built on Maxwell while the Radeon R5 435 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 640 (Quadro 2000M) vs 320 (Radeon R5 435). Raw compute: 1.405 TFLOPS (Quadro 2000M) vs 0.6592 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 435). Boost clocks: 1098 MHz vs 1030 MHz.

Feature	Quadro 2000M	Radeon R5 435
G3D Mark Score	758	762
Architecture	Maxwell	GCN 1.0
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	640+100%	320
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.405 TFLOPS+113%	0.6592 TFLOPS
Boost Clock	1098 MHz+7%	1030 MHz
ROPs	16+100%	8
TMUs	40+100%	20
L1 Cache	320 KB+300%	80 KB
L2 Cache	2 MB+1438%	0.13 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Quadro 2000M	Radeon R5 435
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 Quadro 2000M has 2 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon R5 435 carries 512 MB. Quadro 2000M gives you 300% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 64-bit on the Quadro 2000M and 128-bit on the Radeon R5 435. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Quadro 2000M) vs 0.13 MB (Radeon R5 435) — the Quadro 2000M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Quadro 2000M	Radeon R5 435
VRAM Capacity	2 GB+300%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	128-bit+100%
L2 Cache	2 MB+1438%	0.13 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Quadro 2000M draws 55W versus the Radeon R5 435's 30W — a 58.8% difference. The Radeon R5 435 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Quadro 2000M) vs 350W (Radeon R5 435). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	Quadro 2000M	Radeon R5 435
TDP	55W	30W-45%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	—	168mm
Height	—	69mm
Slots	—	1
Perf/Watt	13.8	25.4+84%

💰

Value Analysis

The newer card here is Radeon R5 435 (2016 vs 2015).

Feature	Quadro 2000M	Radeon R5 435
MSRP	—	$80
Codename	GM107	Jet
Release	December 3 2015	May 15 2016
Ranking	#550	#922

Search Quadro 2000M on Amazon

Search Radeon R5 435 on Amazon

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.