
Radeon R5 M435 vs Radeon HD 6650A

Radeon R5 M435
Popular choices:

Radeon HD 6650A
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 Radeon HD 6650A is on rank 395, 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 R5 M435
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 6650A
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 R5 M435 | Radeon HD 6650A |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.9%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2011 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| 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 $50), it costs 40% less, resulting in a 71.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R5 M435 | Radeon HD 6650A |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+71.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($30) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($50) |
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 Radeon HD 6650A

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.

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.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R5 M435 scores 860 and the Radeon HD 6650A reaches 836 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R5 M435 is built on GCN 1.0 while the Radeon HD 6650A uses TeraScale 2, both on 28 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 320 (Radeon R5 M435) vs 480 (Radeon HD 6650A). Raw compute: 0.6592 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 M435) vs 0.576 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 6650A).
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | Radeon HD 6650A |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 860+3% | 836 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 320 | 480+50% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.6592 TFLOPS+14% | 0.576 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 20 | 24+20% |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB+67% | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 256 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | Radeon HD 6650A |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 128 KB (Radeon R5 M435) vs 256 KB (Radeon HD 6650A) — the Radeon HD 6650A has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | Radeon HD 6650A |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 256 KB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R5 M435 draws 75W versus the Radeon HD 6650A's 45W — a 50% difference. The Radeon HD 6650A is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R5 M435) vs 350W (Radeon HD 6650A). Power connectors: Mobile vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | Radeon HD 6650A |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 75W | 45W-40% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | 1x 6-pin |
| Perf/Watt | 11.5 | 18.6+62% |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R5 M435 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the Radeon HD 6650A launched at $100 and now averages $50. The Radeon R5 M435 costs 40% less ($20 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 28.7 (Radeon R5 M435) vs 16.7 (Radeon HD 6650A) — the Radeon R5 M435 offers 71.9% better value. The Radeon R5 M435 is the newer GPU (2016 vs 2011).
| Feature | Radeon R5 M435 | Radeon HD 6650A |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150 | $100-33% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30-40% | $50 |
| Performance per Dollar | 28.7+72% | 16.7 |
| Codename | Jet | Onega |
| Release | May 15 2016 | April 19 2011 |
| Ranking | #922 | #926 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.














