
Radeon HD 6650A vs Radeon R5 M435

Radeon HD 6650A
Popular choices:

Radeon R5 M435
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Radeon HD 6650A is positioned at rank 395 and the Radeon R5 M435 is on rank 450, so the Radeon HD 6650A offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 6650A
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R5 M435
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R5 M435 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 6650A.
| Insight | Radeon HD 6650A | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R5 M435 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R5 M435 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $50), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 71.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon HD 6650A | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+71.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon HD 6650A and Radeon R5 M435

Radeon HD 6650A
The Radeon HD 6650A is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 19 2011. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 600 MHz. It has 480 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 836 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 Radeon HD 6650A scores 836 and the Radeon R5 M435 reaches 860 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon HD 6650A is built on TeraScale 2 while the Radeon R5 M435 uses GCN 1.0, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 480 (Radeon HD 6650A) vs 320 (Radeon R5 M435). Raw compute: 0.576 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 6650A) vs 0.6592 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 M435).
| Feature | Radeon HD 6650A | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 836 | 860+3% |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 480+50% | 320 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.576 TFLOPS | 0.6592 TFLOPS+14% |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24+20% | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 48 KB | 80 KB+67% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB+100% | 128 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon HD 6650A | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (Radeon HD 6650A) vs 128 KB (Radeon R5 M435) — the Radeon HD 6650A has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon HD 6650A | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB+100% | 128 KB |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon HD 6650A draws 45W versus the Radeon R5 M435's 75W — a 50% difference. The Radeon HD 6650A is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon HD 6650A) vs 350W (Radeon R5 M435). Power connectors: 1x 6-pin vs Mobile.
| Feature | Radeon HD 6650A | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 45W-40% | 75W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | 1x 6-pin | Mobile |
| Perf/Watt | 18.6+62% | 11.5 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon HD 6650A launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $50, while the Radeon R5 M435 launched at $150 and now averages $30. The Radeon R5 M435 costs 40% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 16.7 (Radeon HD 6650A) vs 28.7 (Radeon R5 M435) — the Radeon R5 M435 offers 71.9% better value. The Radeon R5 M435 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon HD 6650A | Radeon R5 M435 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-33% | $150 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $50 | $30-40% |
| Performance per Dollar | 16.7 | 28.7+72% |
| Codename | Onega | Jet |
| Release | April 19 2011 | May 15 2016 |
| Ranking | #926 | #922 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















