
Radeon R5 M435 vs HD Graphics 520

Radeon R5 M435
Popular choices:

HD Graphics 520
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 R5 M435 is positioned at rank 450 and the HD Graphics 520 is on rank 389, so the HD Graphics 520 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R5 M435
Performance Per Dollar HD Graphics 520
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The HD Graphics 520 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Radeon R5 M435 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | Radeon R5 M435 | HD Graphics 520 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Generation 9.0 (2015−2016)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100+%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 $35), it costs 14% less, resulting in a 16.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R5 M435 | HD Graphics 520 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+16.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($35) |
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 R5 M435 and HD Graphics 520

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.

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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R5 M435 scores 860 and the HD Graphics 520 reaches 861 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R5 M435 is built on GCN 1.0 while the HD Graphics 520 uses Generation 9.0, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm+. Shader units: 320 (Radeon R5 M435) vs 192 (HD Graphics 520). Raw compute: 0.6592 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 M435) vs 0.3456 TFLOPS (HD Graphics 520). Boost clocks: 1030 MHz vs 900 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | HD Graphics 520 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 860 | 861 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Generation 9.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm+ |
| Shading Units | 320+67% | 192 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6592 TFLOPS+91% | 0.3456 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1030 MHz+14% | 900 MHz |
| ROPs | 8+167% | 3 |
| TMUs | 20 | 24+20% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | HD Graphics 520 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The Radeon R5 M435 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the HD Graphics 520 has 0 MB. The Radeon R5 M435 offers 100+% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs System.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | HD Graphics 520 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | Shared System RAM |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | Shared |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | System |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | System |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R5 M435 draws 75W versus the HD Graphics 520's 15W — a 133.3% difference. The HD Graphics 520 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R5 M435) vs 1W (HD Graphics 520). Power connectors: Mobile vs Integrated.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | HD Graphics 520 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 15W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 1W-100% |
| Power Connector | Mobile | Integrated |
| Perf/Watt | 11.5 | 57.4+399% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R5 M435 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the HD Graphics 520 launched at $100 and now averages $35. The Radeon R5 M435 costs 14.3% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 28.7 (Radeon R5 M435) vs 24.6 (HD Graphics 520) — the Radeon R5 M435 offers 16.7% better value. The Radeon R5 M435 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2015).
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | HD Graphics 520 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $100-33% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-14% | $35 |
| Performance per Dollar | 28.7+17% | 24.6 |
| Codename | Jet | Skylake GT2 |
| Release | May 15 2016 | September 1 2015 |
| Ranking | #922 | #929 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.










