R5 230 benchmark: Radeon R5 230 [in 1 benchmark]

Radeon R5 230 [in 1 benchmark]

Radeon R5 230

Buy

• Interface PCIe 2.0 x16
• Core clock speed 0
• Max video memory 4096 MB
• Memory type DDR3
• Memory clock speed 0
• Maximum resolution

Summary

AMD started Radeon R5 230 sales 3 April 2014. This is TeraScale 2 architecture desktop card based on 40 nm manufacturing process and primarily aimed at office use. 4 GB of DDR3 memory clocked at are supplied, and together with 64 Bit memory interface this creates a bandwidth of 10.67 GB/s.

Compatibility-wise, this is single-slot card attached via PCIe 2.0 x16 interface. Its manufacturer default version has a length of 168 mm. N/A power connector is required, and power consumption is at 19 Watt.

It provides poor gaming and benchmark performance at

0. 75%

of a leader’s which is NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti.

Radeon R5
230

vs

GeForce RTX
3090 Ti

General info

Of Radeon R5 230’s architecture, market segment and release date.

Place in performance rating	1058
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	Caicos
Market segment	Desktop
Design	reference
Release date	3 April 2014 (8 years ago)
Current price	$115	of 49999 (A100 SXM4)

Value for money

To get the index we compare the characteristics of video cards and their relative prices.

• 0
• 50
• 100

Technical specs

Radeon R5 230’s general performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU base clock, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of Radeon R5 230’s performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider its benchmark and gaming test results.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	160	of 18432 (AD102)
Number of transistors	370 million	of 14400 (GeForce GTX 1080 SLI Mobile)
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	of 4 (GeForce RTX 4080 Ti)
Thermal design power (TDP)	19 Watt	of 900 (Tesla S2050)
Texture fill rate	5.000	of 939. 8 (h200 SXM5)
Floating-point performance	200.0 gflops	of 16384 (Radeon Pro Duo)

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on Radeon R5 230’s compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it’s interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Bus support	PCIe 1.0 x4
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	168 mm
Width	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	N/A

Memory

Parameters of memory installed on Radeon R5 230: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors don’t have dedicated memory and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	of 128 (Radeon Instinct MI250X)
Memory bus width	64 Bit	of 8192 (Radeon Instinct MI250X)
Memory bandwidth	10.67 GB/s	of 14400 (Radeon R7 M260)

Video outputs and ports

Types and number of video connectors present on Radeon R5 230. As a rule, this section is relevant only for desktop reference video cards, since for notebook ones the availability of certain video outputs depends on the laptop model.

Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity	1
HDMI	+
DisplayPort support	—

Technologies

Technological solutions and APIs supported by Radeon R5 230. You’ll probably need this information if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	—
CrossFire	1
Enduro	—
HD3D	—
PowerTune	—
TrueAudio	—
ZeroCore	—
​PowerPlay	+
DDMA audio	—

API support

APIs supported by Radeon R5 230, sometimes including their particular versions.

DirectX	DirectX® 11
Shader Model	5.0
OpenGL	4.4	of 4.6 (GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile)
OpenCL	1. 2
Mantle	—

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance of Radeon R5 230. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.

---

Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R5 230
0.75

• Passmark

Passmark

This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

Benchmark coverage: 26%

R5 230
221

---

Game benchmarks

Let’s see how good Radeon R5 230 is for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in frames per second. Comparisons with game system requirements are included, but remember that sometimes official requirements may reflect reality inaccurately.

Average FPS

Popular games

Relative perfomance

Overall Radeon R5 230 performance compared to nearest competitors among desktop video cards.

---

AMD Radeon HD 8280E
109.33

ATI Radeon HD 4550
106.67

AMD Radeon E6465
105.33

AMD Radeon R5 230
100

ATI Radeon HD 4650
98.67

ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO
96

NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
96

NVIDIA equivalent

We believe that the nearest equivalent to Radeon R5 230 from NVIDIA is GeForce GT 220, which is slower by 4% and lower by 6 positions in our rating.

GeForce GT
220

Compare

Here are some closest NVIDIA rivals to Radeon R5 230:

NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT
117.33

NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS
114.67

NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
110.67

AMD Radeon R5 230
100

NVIDIA GeForce GT 220
96

NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT
90.67

NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2
90.67

Similar GPUs

Here is our recommendation of several graphics cards that are more or less close in performance to the one reviewed.

Radeon
E6465

Compare

Radeon HD
6450

Compare

Radeon HD
8280E

Compare

Radeon HD
8330E

Compare

Radeon HD
6230

Compare

Radeon HD
7450A

Compare

Recommended processors

These processors are most commonly used with Radeon R5 230 according to our statistics.

A9
9425

4.9%

A8
6600K

3.2%

A8
7410

2%

Core i3
9100F

1.7%

A8
6410

1.6%

Core i3
3220

1.6%

Core i5
2400

1.6%

Core i3
2100

1. 5%

Core i5
3470

1.4%

Core 2
Quad Q6600

1.4%

User rating

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics card, as well as rate it yourself.

---

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about Radeon R5 230, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.

---

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.

AMD Radeon R5 230 — review. GPU Benchmark & Specs

AMD Radeon R5 230 graphics card (also called GPU) comes in 892 in the performance rating. It is a good result. The graphics card AMD Radeon R5 230 runs with the minimal clock speed . It is featured by the acceleration option and able to run up to . The manufacturer has equipped AMD with GB of 4 GB memory, clock speed and bandwidth 10. 67 GB/s.

The power consumption of the graphics card is 19 Watt, and the fabrication process is only 40 nm. Below you will find the main data on the compatibility, sizes, technologies and gaming performance test results. Also you can read and leave the comments.

Let’s take a closer look at the most important specifications of the graphics card. To have a good idea what a graphics card is the best, we recommend to use comparison service.

2.4
Out of 21
Hitesti score

Popular graphics cards

Most viewed

AMD Radeon RX Vega 7

Intel UHD Graphics 630

Intel UHD Graphics 600

NVIDIA Quadro T1000

AMD Radeon RX Vega 10

NVIDIA GeForce MX330

Intel HD Graphics 530

Intel UHD Graphics 620

Intel HD Graphics 4600

Intel HD Graphics 520

DE

Buy here:

AliExpress

General info

The basic set of information will help you find out the graphics card AMD Radeon R5 230 release date and its purpose (laptops or PCs), as well as the price at the time of the release and the average current price. This data also includes the architecture employed by the producer, and the chip’s codename.

Place in performance rating:		1017
Value for money (0-100):		4.61
Architecture:		TeraScale 2
Code name:		Caicos
Type:		Desktop
Release date:		3 April 2014 (7 years ago)
Price now:		$119
Design:		reference
Value for money:		0. 13
GPU code name:		Caicos
Market segment:		Desktop

Technical specs

This is the important information that defines the graphics card’s capacity. The simpler the device production process, the better. The core’s power frequency is responsible for its speed (direct correlation) while the elaboration of signals is performed by the transistors (the more transistors, the faster the computations are carried out).

Pipelines:		160
Transistor count:		370 million
Manufacturing process technology:		40 nm
Power consumption (TDP):		19 Watt
Texture fill rate:		5. 000
Floating-point performance:		200.0 gflops
Pipelines / CUDA cores:		160
Number of transistors:		370 million
Thermal design power (TDP):		19 Watt

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Today there are numerous form factors for PC cases, so it is extremely important to know the length of the graphics card and the types of its connection. This will help facilitate the upgrade process.

Interface:		PCIe 2.0 x16
Length:		168 mm
Supplementary power connectors:		N/A
Bus support:		PCIe 1. 0 x4

Memory

The internal main memory is used for storing data while conducting computations. Contemporary games and professional graphic apps have high requirements for the memory’s volume and capacity. The higher this parameter, the more powerful and fast the graphics card is. Type of memory, the capacity and bandwidth for AMD Radeon R5 230.

Memory type:		DDR3
Maximum RAM amount:		4 GB
Memory bus width:		64 Bit
Memory bandwidth:		10.67 GB/s

Video outputs and ports

As a rule, all contemporary graphics cards feature several connection types and additional ports. Knowing these peculiarities is crucial for avoiding problems with connecting the graphics card to the monitor or other peripheral devices.

Display Connectors:		1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity:		1
HDMI:		+
DisplayPort support:		—

Technologies

Each graphic card manufacturer complements its products with branded technologies that are used both in games and in the working process. Below is the list of peculiar features that you may find rather useful.

AppAcceleration:		—
CrossFire:		1
HD3D:		—
PowerTune:		—
TrueAudio:		—
ZeroCore:		—
DDMA audio:		—
Enduro:		—
DirectX 11:		DirectX 11
​PowerPlay:		+

API support

All API-supported AMD Radeon R5 230 are listed below.

DirectX:		DirectX® 11
OpenGL:		4.4
Shader Model:		5.0
OpenCL:		1.2
Mantle:		—

Overall gaming performance

All tests have been based on FPS counter. Let’s have a look on what place AMD Radeon R5 230 has been taken in the gaming performance test (calculation has been made in accordance with the game developer recommendations about system requirements; it can differ from the real world situations).

Select games to view
Horizon Zero DawnDeath StrandingF1 2020Gears TacticsDoom EternalHunt ShowdownEscape from TarkovHearthstoneRed Dead Redemption 2Star Wars Jedi Fallen OrderNeed for Speed HeatCall of Duty Modern Warfare 2019GRID 2019Ghost Recon BreakpointFIFA 20Borderlands 3ControlF1 2019League of LegendsTotal War: Three KingdomsRage 2Anno 1800The Division 2Dirt Rally 2. 0AnthemMetro ExodusFar Cry New DawnApex LegendsJust Cause 4Darksiders IIIFarming Simulator 19Battlefield VFallout 76Hitman 2Call of Duty Black Ops 4Assassin´s Creed OdysseyForza Horizon 4FIFA 19Shadow of the Tomb RaiderStrange BrigadeF1 2018Monster Hunter WorldThe Crew 2Far Cry 5World of Tanks enCoreX-Plane 11.11Kingdom Come: DeliveranceFinal Fantasy XV BenchmarkFortniteStar Wars Battlefront 2Need for Speed PaybackCall of Duty WWIIAssassin´s Creed OriginsWolfenstein II: The New ColossusDestiny 2ELEXThe Evil Within 2Middle-earth: Shadow of WarFIFA 18Ark Survival EvolvedF1 2017Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds (2017)Team Fortress 2Dirt 4Rocket LeaguePreyMass Effect AndromedaGhost Recon WildlandsFor HonorResident Evil 7Dishonored 2Call of Duty Infinite WarfareTitanfall 2Farming Simulator 17Civilization VIBattlefield 1Mafia 3Deus Ex Mankind DividedMirror’s Edge CatalystOverwatchDoomAshes of the SingularityHitman 2016The DivisionFar Cry PrimalXCOM 2Rise of the Tomb RaiderRainbow Six SiegeAssassin’s Creed SyndicateStar Wars BattlefrontFallout 4Call of Duty: Black Ops 3Anno 2205World of WarshipsDota 2 RebornThe Witcher 3Dirt RallyGTA VDragon Age: InquisitionFar Cry 4Assassin’s Creed UnityCall of Duty: Advanced WarfareAlien: IsolationMiddle-earth: Shadow of MordorSims 4Wolfenstein: The New OrderThe Elder Scrolls OnlineThiefX-Plane 10. 25Battlefield 4Total War: Rome IICompany of Heroes 2Metro: Last LightBioShock InfiniteStarCraft II: Heart of the SwarmSimCityTomb RaiderCrysis 3Hitman: AbsolutionCall of Duty: Black Ops 2World of Tanks v8Borderlands 2Counter-Strike: GODirt ShowdownDiablo IIIMass Effect 3The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimBattlefield 3Deus Ex Human RevolutionStarCraft 2Metro 2033Stalker: Call of PripyatGTA IV — Grand Theft AutoLeft 4 DeadTrackmania Nations ForeverCall of Duty 4 — Modern WarfareSupreme Commander — FA BenchCrysis — GPU BenchmarkWorld in Conflict — BenchmarkHalf Life 2 — Lost Coast BenchmarkWorld of WarcraftDoom 3Quake 3 Arena — TimedemoHalo InfiniteFarming Simulator 22Battlefield 2042Forza Horizon 5Riders RepublicGuardians of the GalaxyBack 4 BloodDeathloopF1 2021Days GoneResident Evil VillageHitman 3Cyberpunk 2077Assassin´s Creed ValhallaDirt 5Watch Dogs LegionMafia Definitive EditionCyberpunk 2077 1.5GRID LegendsDying Light 2Rainbow Six ExtractionGod of War

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Horizon Zero Dawn (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Death Stranding (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

F1 2020 (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Gears Tactics (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Doom Eternal (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Legend
5	Stutter – The performance of this graphics cards with this game is not well explored yet. According to interpolated information obtained from graphics cards of similar efficiency levels, the game is likely to stutter and show low frame rates.
	May Stutter – The performance of this graphics cards with this game is not well explored yet. According to interpolated information obtained from graphics cards of similar efficiency levels, the game is likely to stutter and show low frame rates.
30	Fluent – According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphical settings, this game is expected to run at 25fps or more
40	Fluent – According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphical settings, this game is expected to run at 35fps or more
60	Fluent – According to all known benchmarks with the specified graphical settings, this game is expected to run at 58fps or more
	May Run Fluently – The performance of this graphics cards with this game is not well explored yet. According to interpolated information obtained from graphics cards of similar efficiency levels, the game is likely to show fluent frame rates.
?	Uncertain – The testing of this graphics cards on this game showed unexpected results. A slower card might be able to produce higher and more consistent frame rates when running the same benchmark scene.
	Uncertain – The performance of this graphics cards with this game is not well explored yet. No reliable data interpolation can be made based on the performance of similar cards of the same category.
The value in the fields reflects the average frame rate across the entire database. To obtain individual results, move your cursor over the value.

Benchmark

Benchmarks help determine the performance in standard tests for AMD Radeon R5 230. We have listed the world’s most famous benchmarks so that you could obtain accurate results in each (see the description). Graphics card preliminary testing is especially important in the presence of high loads so that the user could see to what extent the graphic processing unit copes with computations and data elaboration.

Overall benchmark performance

NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500

AMD Radeon HD 6520G + HD 7450M Dual Graphics

AMD Radeon R5 230

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470

NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 X2

PassMark is a great benchmark that gets updated regularly and shows relevant information on the graphics card’s performance.

NVIDIA GeForce 410M

AMD Radeon HD 8330

AMD Radeon R5 230

ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5470

NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500 X2

2. 4
Out of 21
Hitesti score

Share on social network:

In order to leave a review you need to log in

Reviews of AMD Radeon R5 230

 

Compare AMD Radeon R5 230

VS

NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT

NVIDIA Quadro P520

AMD Radeon HD 6450

AMD Cedar

AMD Radeon R9 280

AMD Caicos

NVIDIA GeForce GT 710

NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2070 Mobile

AMD Fiji

AMD Baffin

GPU Compare | Graphics Card Comparison

The Radeon R5 230 will run 68% of the top 10,000 PC games. It will also run 38% of these games at the recommended or best experience levels.

Manufacturer

AMD

Generation

10 generations old

Category

Mainstream

Dedicated RAM

1. 0 GB

DirectX

11

Rank

66th percentile of AMD GPUs

Rank in Power

178th of AMD GPUs

Rank in Popularity

41st of AMD GPUs

Can the Radeon R5 230 run the Top PC games? You can see a GPU comparison by choosing another video card. How many games can your GPU run?

		Radeon R5 230 Choose Another. ..	Radeon RX 6950 XT Choose Another…
Rank	Game	Min Rec	Min Rec
1	Cyberpunk 2077
2	Grand Theft Auto V
3	FIFA 23
4	VALORANT
5	Need for Speed Heat
6	Call of Duty: Warzone
7	Elden Ring
8	Red Dead Redemption 2
9	Fortnite
10	Marvel’s Spider-Man Remastered
11	Minecraft
12	Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II
13	God of War
14	Genshin Impact
15	FIFA 22
16	League of Legends
17	Apex Legends
18	Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
19	Forza Horizon 5
20	ARK: Survival Evolved
21	The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt
22	Assassin’s Creed Valhalla
23	PLAYERUNKNOWN’S BATTLEGROUNDS
24	The Sims 4
25	Overwatch 2
26	Assassin’s Creed Odyssey
27	Far Cry 6
28	Phasmophobia
29	Assassin’s Creed: Origins
30	Dying Light 2 Stay Human
31	Middle-earth: Shadow of War
32	Batman: Arkham Knight
33	World War 3
34	Assassin’s Creed Unity
35	Battlefield 2042
36	Mortal Kombat 11
37	Overwatch
38	Grounded
39	Batman: Arkham City
40	Call of Duty: Modern Warfare
41	Call of Duty: Black Ops II
42	Destiny 2
43	Rust
44	Fallout 4
45	Assassin’s Creed IV Black Flag
46	Battlefield 1
47	Forza Horizon 4
48	Assassin’s Creed Mirage
49	Skyrim Special Edition
50	BONELAB
51	Valheim
52	Call of Duty: WW2
53	Slime Rancher 2
54	SEKIRO: SHADOWS DIE TWICE
55	Rocket League
56	Battlefield 4
57	The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
58	Far Cry 3
59	Assassin’s Creed Syndicate
60	GTA 5 Thor Mod
61	Back 4 Blood
62	GTA 5 Premium Online Edition
63	Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor
64	Dragon Ball FighterZ
65	Assassin’s Creed II
66	Call of Duty: Black Ops III
67	Dark Souls 3
68	Escape from Tarkov
69	Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3
70	Grand Theft Auto IV
71	Sea of Thieves
72	Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020
73	World of Warcraft
74	Dragon Ball Z Kakarot
75	Persona 5 Royal
76	Terraria
77	Assassin’s Creed
78	Fortnite: Battle Royale
79	Assassin’s Creed III
80	Dota 2
81	DRAGON BALL XENOVERSE 2
82	Batman: Arkham Asylum
83	Assassin’s Creed Rogue
84	Battlefield 5
85	Tom Clancy’s Rainbow Six: Siege
86	Monster Hunter: World
87	Fall Guys: Ultimate Knockout
88	Far Cry 4
89	FIFA 15
90	Far Cry 5
91	WARZONE
92	PUBG Lite
93	Devil May Cry 5
94	CS:GO — Operation Riptide
95	Kena: Bridge of Spirits
96	Call of Duty: Black Ops 4
97	Horizon Zero Dawn
98	FIFA 17
99	The Forest
100	FIFA 19

AMD

NVIDIA

Intel

Rank	GPU

AMD Radeon R5 230 review: GPU specs, performance benchmarks

Buy on Amazon

Radeon R5 230 videocard released by AMD; release date: 3 April 2014. The videocard is designed for desktop-computers and based on TeraScale 2 microarchitecture codenamed Caicos.

Texture fill rate — 5 GTexel / s. Pipelines — 160. Floating-point performance — 200.0 gflops. Manufacturing process technology — 40 nm. Transistors count — 370 million. Power consumption (TDP) — 19 Watt.

Memory type: DDR3. Maximum RAM amount — 4 GB. Memory bus width — 64 Bit. Memory bandwidth — 10.67 GB / s.

Benchmarks

PassMark G3D Mark	Top 1 GPU This GPU
PassMark G2D Mark	Top 1 GPU This GPU
Geekbench OpenCL	Top 1 GPU This GPU	237214
GFXBench 4. 0 Car Chase Offscreen	Top 1 GPU This GPU	34770 Frames 439 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 Car Chase Offscreen	Top 1 GPU This GPU	34770.000 Fps 439.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 Manhattan	Top 1 GPU This GPU	27823 Frames 992 Frames
GFXBench 4. 0 Manhattan	Top 1 GPU This GPU	27823.000 Fps 992.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 T-Rex	Top 1 GPU This GPU	69225 Frames 2480 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 T-Rex	Top 1 GPU This GPU	69225. 000 Fps 2480.000 Fps

Name	Value
PassMark — G3D Mark	222
PassMark — G2D Mark	255
Geekbench — OpenCL	4127
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen	439 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 — Car Chase Offscreen	439.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 — Manhattan	992 Frames
GFXBench 4. 0 — Manhattan	992.000 Fps
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex	2480 Frames
GFXBench 4.0 — T-Rex	2480.000 Fps

Specifications (specs)

Architecture	TeraScale 2
Code name	Caicos
Design	AMD Radeon R5 200 Series
Launch date	3 April 2014
Place in performance rating	1192
Price now	$50
Type	Desktop
Value for money (0-100)	6. 10
Floating-point performance	200.0 gflops
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm
Pipelines	160
Texture fill rate	5 GTexel / s
Thermal Design Power (TDP)	19 Watt
Transistor count	370 million
Display Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
DisplayPort support
Dual-link DVI support
Eyefinity
HDMI
VGA
Bus support	PCIe 1. 0 x4
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	168 mm
Supplementary power connectors	N / A
DirectX	11
OpenGL	4.4
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB
Memory bandwidth	10.67 GB / s
Memory bus width	64 Bit
Memory type	DDR3
AMD Eyefinity
CrossFire
DDMA audio
​PowerPlay

Navigation

Choose a GPU

Compare videocards

Compare AMD Radeon R5 230 with others

AMD
Radeon R5 230



vs



NVIDIA
GeForce 7900 GTX




AMD
Radeon R5 230



vs



NVIDIA
GeForce GTS 350M




AMD
Radeon R5 230



vs



AMD
Radeon HD 8730M




AMD
Radeon R5 230



vs



AMD
Radeon HD 8510G




AMD
Radeon R5 230



vs



NVIDIA
GeForce GT 640 Rev. 2




AMD
Radeon R5 230



vs



NVIDIA
GeForce 920M

Radeon R5 Valorant benchmark with Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz at Ultra Quality ? 1080p, 1440p, Ultrawide, 4K Performance Benchmarks

1	2020	AMD Ryzen 9 5950X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 9 5950X	$ 710.0
2	2021	Intel Core i7-12700K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i7-12700K	$ 470.0
3	2021	Intel Core i9-12900K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i9-12900K	$ 590.0
4	2022	AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 5800X3D	$ 450. 0
5	2021	Intel Core i9-11900K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i9-11900K	$ 488.0
6	2020	AMD Ryzen 9 5900X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 9 5900X	$ 499.0
7	2021	Intel Core i5-12600K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i5-12600K	$ 290.0
8	2020	AMD Ryzen 7 5800X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 5800X	$ 399.0
9	2021	Intel Core i7-11700K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i7-11700K	$ 410.0
10	2020	AMD Ryzen 5 5600X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 5600X	$ 299. 0
11	2020	Intel Core i9-10900K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i9-10900K	$ 590.0
12	2020	Intel Core i7-10700K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i7-10700K	$ 409.1
13	2018	Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i9-9900K	$ 835.0
14	2021	Intel Core i5-11600K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i5-11600K	$ 262.0
15	2018	Intel Core i9-9900 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i9-9900	$ 440.0
16	2022	Intel Core i5-12400 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i5-12400	$ 143. 0
17	2018	Intel Core i7-9700K @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-9700K	$ 410.0
18	2021	Intel Core i5-11400 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i5-11400	$ 182.0
19	2018	Intel Core i7-8086K @ 4.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-8086K	$ 553.0
20	2018	Intel Core i7-9700 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-9700	$ 330.0
21	2018	Intel Core i7-9700F @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-9700F	$ 368.0
22	2020	Intel Core i5-10600K >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i5-10600K	$ 236. 8
23	2017	Intel Core i7-8700K @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-8700K	$ 369.9
24	2017	Intel Core i9-7940X @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i9-7940X	$ 1,192.1
25	2019	AMD Ryzen 9 3950X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 9 3950X	$ 750.0
26	2020	Intel Core i5-10400 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i5-10400	$ 182.0
27	2019	AMD Ryzen 9 3900X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 9 3900X	$ 499.0
28	2019	AMD Ryzen 7 3700X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 3700X	$ 330. 0
29	2019	AMD Ryzen 7 3800X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 3800X	$ 399.0
30	2019	AMD Ryzen 5 3600X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 3600X	$ 249.0
31	2018	Intel Core i5-9600K @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-9600K	$ 280.0
32	2019	AMD Ryzen 5 3600 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 3600	$ 199.0
33	2018	Intel Core i5-9600KF @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-9600KF	$ 215.0
34	2022	AMD Ryzen 7 5700X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 5700X	$ 300. 0
35	2022	AMD Ryzen 5 5500 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 5500	$ 160.0
36	2022	Intel Core i3-12300 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i3-12300	$ 143.0
37	2017	Intel Core i5-8600K @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-8600K	$ 377.7
38	2017	Intel Core i9-7900X @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i9-7900X	$ 1,380.0
39	2017	Intel Core i9-7980XE @ 2.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i9-7980XE	$ 2,005.5
40	2019	AMD Ryzen 5 3500X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 3500X	$ 160. 5
41	2022	Intel Core i3-12100 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i3-12100	$ 122.0
42	2017	Intel Core i7-8700 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-8700	$ 454.5
43	2017	Intel Core i9-7920X @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i9-7920X	$ 1,096.7
44	2017	Intel Core i9-7960X @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i9-7960X	$ 2,000.0
45	2019	Intel Core i5-9400F @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-9400F	$ 170.0
46	2019	Intel Core i5-9400 @ 2. 90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-9400	$ 170.0
47	2019	AMD Ryzen 5 3500 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 3500	$ 148.0
48	2021	Intel Core i3-11300 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i3-11300	$ 143.0
49	2018	Intel Core i5-8600 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-8600	$ 244.5
50	2017	Intel Core i7-7740X @ 4.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-7740X	$ 349.0
51	2020	AMD Ryzen 3 3300X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 3 3300X	$ 120. 0
52	2020	AMD Ryzen 3 3100 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 3 3100	$ 90.0
53	2021	Intel Core i3-11100 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i3-11100	$ 122.0
54	2020	Intel Core i3-10300 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i3-10300	$ 143.0
55	2018	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2950X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen Threadripper 2950X	$ 900.0
56	2018	Intel Core i5-8500 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-8500	$ 239.0
57	2016	Intel Core i7-7700K @ 4. 20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-7700K	$ 355.0
58	2017	Intel Core i7-7820X @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-7820X	$ 930.0
59	2014	Intel Core i7-4790K @ 4.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4790K	$ 307.0
60	2020	Intel Core i3-10100 >> compare i7-4790K vs Core i3-10100	$ 122.0
61	2018	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX	$ 1,720.0
62	2017	Intel Core i5-7640X @ 4.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-7640X	$ 250. 0
63	2017	Intel Core i5-8400 @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-8400	$ 200.0
64	2019	Intel Core i3-9350KF @ 4.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-9350KF	$ 224.0
65	2019	Intel Core i3-9320 @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-9320	$ 162.0
66	2019	Intel Core i3-9100 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-9100	$ 170.0
67	2017	Intel Core i3-8350K @ 4.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-8350K	$ 184.0
68	2019	Intel Core i3-9100F @ 3. 60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-9100F	$ 105.0
69	2017	Intel Core i5-7600K @ 3.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-7600K	$ 251.0
70	2016	Intel Core i7-6950X @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-6950X	$ 1,576.0
71	2017	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen Threadripper 1950X	$ 680.0
72	2015	Intel Core i7-6700K @ 4.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-6700K	$ 335.0
73	2016	Intel Core i7-6900K @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-6900K	$ 1,200. 0
74	2017	Intel Core i7-7800X @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-7800X	$ 370.0
75	2018	AMD Ryzen 7 2700X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 2700X	$ 305.0
76	2018	Intel Core i3-8300 @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-8300	$ 179.4
77	2016	Intel Core i7-7700 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-7700	$ 325.1
78	2017	Intel Core i5-7600 @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-7600	$ 240.0
79	2015	Intel Core i7-6700 @ 3. 40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-6700	$ 433.7
80	2016	Intel Core i7-6800K @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-6800K	$ 420.0
81	2017	Intel Core i3-8100 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-8100	$ 130.0
82	2013	Intel Core i7-4770K @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4770K	$ 285.0
83	2014	Intel Core i7-4790 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4790	$ 279.0
84	2015	Intel Core i7-5775C @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-5775C	$ 450. 0
85	2014	Intel Core i7-5930K @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-5930K	$ 499.0
86	2016	Intel Core i7-6850K @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-6850K	$ 550.0
87	2018	AMD Ryzen 5 2600X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 2600X	$ 210.0
88	2017	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen Threadripper 1920X	$ 420.0
89	2013	Intel Core i7-4770 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4770	$ 240.0
90	2013	Intel Core i7-4771 @ 3. 50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4771	$ 300.0
91	2014	Intel Core i7-4790S @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4790S	$ 342.6
92	2018	AMD Ryzen 7 2700 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 2700	$ 249.2
93	2017	AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen Threadripper 1900X	$ 350.0
94	2013	Intel Core i7-4770S @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4770S	$ 250.0
95	2013	Intel Core i7-4960X @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4960X	$ 770. 0
96	2014	Intel Core i5-4690 @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4690	$ 200.0
97	2014	Intel Core i5-4690K @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4690K	$ 200.0
98	2014	Intel Core i5-4690S @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4690S	$ 269.9
99	2015	Intel Core i5-6600K @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-6600K	$ 288.9
100	2016	Intel Core i5-7500 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-7500	$ 210.0
101	2014	Intel Core i7-5820K @ 3. 30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-5820K	$ 300.0
102	2014	Intel Core i7-5960X @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-5960X	$ 770.0
103	2018	AMD Ryzen 5 2600 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 2600	$ 150.0
104	2017	AMD Ryzen 7 1800X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 1800X	$ 250.0
105	2012	Intel Core i7-3970X @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-3970X	$ 954.0
106	2017	AMD Ryzen 5 1600X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 1600X	$ 178. 4
107	2017	Intel Core i3-7350K @ 4.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-7350K	$ 230.0
108	2013	Intel Core i5-4670 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4670	$ 188.0
109	2013	Intel Core i5-4670K @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4670K	$ 250.0
110	2018	Intel Core i5-4670R @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4670R	$ 276.0
111	2015	Intel Core i5-5675C @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-5675C	$ 400.0
112	2015	Intel Core i5-6600 @ 3. 30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-6600	$ 220.0
113	2012	Intel Core i7-3770 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-3770	$ 179.0
114	2012	Intel Core i7-3770K @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-3770K	$ 249.0
115	2011	Intel Core i7-3960X @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-3960X	$ 800.0
116	2013	Intel Core i7-4930K @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4930K	$ 399.0
117	2014	Intel Core i5-4590 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4590	$ 185. 0
118	2017	AMD Ryzen 7 1700X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 1700X	$ 200.0
119	2017	Intel Core i3-7320 @ 4.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-7320	$ 174.8
120	2013	Intel Core i5-4570 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4570	$ 175.0
121	2014	Intel Core i5-4590S @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4590S	$ 198.0
122	2017	Intel Core i5-7400 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-7400	$ 213.5
123	2011	Intel Core i7-2700K @ 3. 50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-2700K	$ 200.0
124	2012	Intel Core i7-3770S @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-3770S	$ 200.0
125	2011	Intel Core i7-3930K @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-3930K	$ 399.0
126	2013	Intel Core i7-4820K @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-4820K	$ 500.0
127	2019	AMD Ryzen 5 3400G >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 3400G	$ 150.0
128	2017	Intel Core i3-7300 @ 4.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-7300	$ 210. 0
129	2017	AMD Ryzen 5 1500X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 1500X	$ 144.9
130	2017	AMD Ryzen 5 1600 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 1600	$ 155.0
131	2018	AMD Ryzen 5 2400G >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 2400G	$ 159.0
132	2017	AMD Ryzen 7 1700 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 7 1700	$ 190.0
133	2015	Intel Core i5-6500 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-6500	$ 234.4
134	2010	Intel Core i7-2600 @ 3. 40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-2600	$ 150.0
135	2010	Intel Core i7-2600K @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-2600K	$ 198.0
136	2012	Intel Core i7-3820 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-3820	$ 200.0
137	2019	AMD Ryzen 3 3200G >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 3 3200G	$ 99.0
138	2012	Intel Core i5-3570 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3570	$ 140.0
139	2012	Intel Core i5-3570K @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3570K	$ 144. 0
140	2013	Intel Core i5-4570S @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4570S	$ 221.6
141	2016	Intel Core i5-6402P @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-6402P	$ 190.0
142	2018	AMD Ryzen 3 2200G >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 3 2200G	$ 98.0
143	2017	Intel Core i3-7100 @ 3.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-7100	$ 170.0
144	2012	Intel Core i5-3550 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3550	$ 330.0
145	2012	Intel Core i5-3550S @ 3. 00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3550S	$ 341.0
146	2012	Intel Core i5-3570S @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3570S	$ 285.0
147	2017	AMD Ryzen 3 1300X >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 3 1300X	$ 125.0
148	2012	Intel Core i5-2550K @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2550K	$ 130.0
149	2012	Intel Core i5-3470 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3470	$ 125.0
150	2012	Intel Core i5-3475S @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3475S	$ 143. 5
151	2014	Intel Core i5-4460 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4460	$ 170.0
152	2014	Intel Core i5-4460S @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4460S	$ 660.0
153	2015	Intel Core i5-6400 @ 2.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-6400	$ 200.0
154	2013	Intel Core i5-4440 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4440	$ 170.0
155	2013	Intel Core i5-4440S @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4440S	$ 463.0
156	2011	Intel Core i7-2600S @ 2. 80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-2600S	$ 200.0
157	2010	Intel Core i5-2500 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2500	$ 105.0
158	2010	Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2500K	$ 124.0
159	2012	Intel Core i5-3450 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3450	$ 128.0
160	2012	Intel Core i5-3470S @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3470S	$ 140.1
161	2013	Intel Core i5-4430 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4430	$ 180. 0
162	2017	AMD Ryzen 5 1400 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 5 1400	$ 134.0
163	2012	Intel Core i5-3450S @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3450S	$ 100.0
164	2017	AMD Ryzen 3 1200 >> compare i7-4790K vs Ryzen 3 1200	$ 95.0
165	2012	Intel Core i5-2450P @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2450P	$ 90.0
166	2011	Intel Core i5-2500S @ 2.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2500S	$ 75.0
167	2013	Intel Core i5-3340 @ 3. 10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3340	$ 262.0
168	2013	Intel Core i5-4430S @ 2.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-4430S	$ 160.0
169	2011	Intel Core i7-990X @ 3.47GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-990X	$ 350.0
170	2010	Intel Core i5-2400 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2400	$ 84.0
171	2013	Intel Core i5-3340S @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3340S	$ 150.0
172	2012	Intel Core i5-3350P @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3350P	$ 170. 0
173	2011	Intel Core i5-2320 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2320	$ 195.3
174	2012	Intel Core i5-2380P @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2380P	$ 90.0
175	2012	Intel Core i5-3330 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3330	$ 100.0
176	2012	Intel Core i5-3330S @ 2.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-3330S	$ 95.0
177	2010	Intel Core i7-980X @ 3.33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-980X	$ 220.0
178	2013	AMD FX-9590 Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-9590	$ 122. 0
179	2011	Intel Core i5-2310 @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2310	$ 80.0
180	2011	Intel Core i5-2400S @ 2.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2400S	$ 65.7
181	2011	Intel Core i5-2405S @ 2.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2405S	$ 164.4
182	2011	Intel Core i7-980 @ 3.33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-980	$ 200.0
183	2013	AMD FX-9370 Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-9370	$ 178.9
184	2010	Intel Core i5-680 @ 3. 60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-680	$ 90.0
185	2014	AMD FX-8370 Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-8370	$ 135.0
186	2014	AMD FX-8370E Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-8370E	$ 180.0
187	2011	Intel Core i5-2300 @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-2300	$ 80.0
188	2010	Intel Core i7-970 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-970	$ 150.0
189	2009	Intel Core i7-975 @ 3.33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-975	$ 180. 0
190	2012	AMD FX-8350 Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-8350	$ 80.0
191	2014	Intel Core i3-4370 @ 3.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4370	$ 450.0
192	2015	Intel Core i3-6320 @ 3.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-6320	$ 160.0
193	2013	AMD Athlon X4 760K Quad Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon X4 760K	$ 46.0
194	2012	AMD FX-8320 Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-8320	$ 79.5
195	2015	Intel Core i3-6300 @ 3. 80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-6300	$ 143.0
196	2010	Intel Core i5-655K @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-655K	$ 60.0
197	2010	Intel Core i5-670 @ 3.47GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-670	$ 90.0
198	2010	Intel Core i7-880 @ 3.07GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-880	$ 583.0
199	2009	Intel Core i7-960 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-960	$ 100.0
200	2008	Intel Core i7-965 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-965	$ 140. 0
201	2015	Intel Core i3-4170 @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4170	$ 150.0
202	2014	Intel Core i3-4360 @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4360	$ 280.0
203	2015	Intel Core i3-6100 @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-6100	$ 166.1
204	2013	AMD FX-8300 Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-8300	$ 80.6
205	2014	Intel Core i3-4160 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4160	$ 140.0
206	2013	Intel Core i3-4340 @ 3. 60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4340	$ 170.0
207	2014	Intel Core i3-4350 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4350	$ 170.0
208	2016	Intel Core i3-6098P @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-6098P	$ 133.7
209	2009	Intel Core i5-660 @ 3.33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-660	$ 49.0
210	2009	Intel Core i7-870 @ 2.93GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-870	$ 310.0
211	2009	Intel Core i7-950 @ 3.07GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-950	$ 245. 0
212	2008	Intel Core2 Extreme X9770 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs X9770	$ 1,609.0
213	2009	Intel Core2 Extreme X9775 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs X9775	$ 1,806.0
214	2014	AMD FX-8320E Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-8320E	$ 98.9
215	2011	AMD FX-8150 Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-8150	$ 383.5
216	2010	AMD Phenom II X6 1100T >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X6 1100T	$ 200.0
217	2014	Intel Core i3-4150 @ 3. 50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4150	$ 260.0
218	2013	Intel Core i3-4330 @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4330	$ 180.0
219	2010	Intel Core i5-650 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-650	$ 100.0
220	2010	Intel Core i5-661 @ 3.33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-661	$ 100.0
221	2011	Intel Core i7-860S @ 2.53GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-860S	$ 200.0
222	2010	Intel Core i7-875K @ 2.93GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-875K	$ 200. 0
223	2008	Intel Core i7-940 @ 2.93GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-940	$ 70.7
224	2012	AMD Athlon X4 740 Quad Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon X4 740	$ 277.0
225	2011	AMD FX-8120 Eight-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-8120	$ 100.0
226	2010	AMD Phenom II X6 1090T >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X6 1090T	$ 396.1
227	2010	Intel Core i5-760 @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-760	$ 100.0
228	2009	Intel Core i7-860 @ 2. 80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-860	$ 290.0
229	2010	Intel Core i7-930 @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-930	$ 60.0
230	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E8600 @ 3.33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E8600	$ 50.0
231	2008	Intel Core2 Extreme X9650 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs X9650	$ 909.0
232	2013	Intel Core i3-4130 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-4130	$ 140.0
233	2013	AMD FX-6350 Six-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-6350	$ 130. 0
234	2010	AMD Phenom II X6 1075T >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X6 1075T	$ 260.0
235	2008	Intel Core i7-920 @ 2.67GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i7-920	$ 174.0
236	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E8500 @ 3.16GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E8500	$ 40.0
237	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 965 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 965	$ 59.5
238	2010	AMD Phenom II X6 1055T >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X6 1055T	$ 185.0
239	2013	Intel Core i3-3250 @ 3. 50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-3250	$ 95.0
240	2009	Intel Core i5-750 @ 2.67GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5-750	$ 160.5
241	2008	Intel Core2 Extreme Q6850 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q6850	$ 1,496.0
242	2012	AMD FX-6300 Six-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-6300	$ 59.0
243	2012	Intel Core i3-3240 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-3240	$ 46.0
244	2013	Intel Core i3-3245 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-3245	$ 80. 0
245	2018	Intel Pentium Gold G5600 @ 3.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium Gold G5600	$ 100.9
246	2011	AMD Athlon II X3 460 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X3 460	$ 50.0
247	2012	AMD FX-6200 Six-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-6200	$ 340.0
248	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 955 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 955	$ 130.2
249	2011	AMD Phenom II X4 960T >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 960T	$ 135.0
250	2010	AMD Phenom II X4 B97 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 B97	$ 90. 0
251	2010	AMD Phenom II X6 1045T >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X6 1045T	$ 175.0
252	2011	Intel Core i3-2130 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-2130	$ 70.0
253	2012	Intel Core i3-3220 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-3220	$ 34.9
254	2012	Intel Core i3-3225 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-3225	$ 100.0
255	2009	Intel Core2 Duo E7500 @ 2.93GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E7500	$ 15.0
256	2009	Intel Core2 Duo E7600 @ 3. 06GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E7600	$ 120.0
257	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E8400 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E8400	$ 9.8
258	2008	Intel Core2 Extreme Q6800 @ 2.93GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q6800	$ 1,125.0
259	2008	Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q9650	$ 69.8
260	2018	Intel Pentium Gold G5400 @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium Gold G5400	$ 123.9
261	2018	Intel Pentium Gold G5500 @ 3.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium Gold G5500	$ 100. 3
262	2011	AMD Athlon II X2 270 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 270	$ 24.0
263	2012	AMD Athlon II X2 B28 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 B28	$ 49.1
264	2010	AMD Athlon II X3 455 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X3 455	$ 116.9
265	2010	AMD Athlon II X4 645 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X4 645	$ 50.0
266	2011	AMD Phenom II X4 840 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 840	$ 90.0
267	2010	AMD Phenom II X6 1035T >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X6 1035T	$ 189. 0
268	2013	Intel Core i3-3210 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-3210	$ 100.0
269	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E8300 @ 2.83GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E8300	$ 20.0
270	2008	Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 @ 2.83GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q9550	$ 49.0
271	2010	AMD Athlon II X2 265 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 265	$ 82.9
272	2010	AMD Athlon II X3 450 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X3 450	$ 40.0
273	2010	AMD Athlon II X4 640 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X4 640	$ 80. 0
274	2011	AMD Phenom II X2 565 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X2 565	$ 30.0
275	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 940 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 940	$ 120.0
276	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 945 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 945	$ 50.0
277	2010	AMD Phenom II X4 B95 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 B95	$ 73.0
278	2011	Intel Core i3-2120 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-2120	$ 30.0
279	2011	Intel Core i3-2125 @ 3. 30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-2125	$ 199.0
280	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E6850 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6850	$ 50.0
281	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E7300 @ 2.66GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E7300	$ 20.0
282	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E7400 @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E7400	$ 29.0
283	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E8200 @ 2.66GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E8200	$ 50.0
284	2008	Intel Core2 Extreme X6800 @ 2.93GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs X6800	$ 263. 6
285	2010	Intel Core2 Quad Q9500 @ 2.83GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q9500	$ 35.0
286	2017	Intel Pentium G4620 @ 3.70GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G4620	$ 105.9
287	2016	Intel Core i3-2102 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-2102	$ 58.0
288	2009	Intel Core2 Quad Q9505 @ 2.83GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q9505	$ 190.0
289	2014	Intel Pentium G3258 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3258	$ 178.3
290	2015	Intel Pentium G3470 @ 3. 60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3470	$ 104.3
291	2015	Intel Pentium G4520 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G4520	$ 110.9
292	2017	Intel Pentium G4600 @ 3.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G4600	$ 100.0
293	2010	AMD Athlon II X2 260 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 260	$ 20.0
294	2009	AMD Athlon II X3 435 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X3 435	$ 50.0
295	2010	AMD Athlon II X3 440 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X3 440	$ 47. 0
296	2010	AMD Athlon II X3 445 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X3 445	$ 91.0
297	2009	AMD Athlon II X4 630 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X4 630	$ 43.0
298	2010	AMD Athlon II X4 635 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X4 635	$ 70.0
299	2012	AMD Athlon II X4 641 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X4 641	$ 91.5
300	2009	AMD Phenom II X2 550 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X2 550	$ 50.0
301	2010	AMD Phenom II X2 555 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X2 555	$ 142. 1
302	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 820 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 820	$ 75.0
303	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 920 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 920	$ 67.0
304	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 925 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 925	$ 160.0
305	2011	Intel Core i3-2100 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-2100	$ 60.0
306	2011	Intel Core i3-2105 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-2105	$ 80.0
307	2012	Intel Core i5 750S @ 2. 40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i5 750S	$ 100.0
308	2014	Intel Pentium G3450 @ 3.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3450	$ 100.0
309	2014	Intel Pentium G3460 @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3460	$ 288.2
310	2017	Intel Pentium G4560 @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G4560	$ 103.1
311	2009	AMD Athlon II X2 250 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 250	$ 39.0
312	2010	AMD Athlon II X2 255 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 255	$ 65. 2
313	2010	AMD Athlon II X2 B24 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 B24	$ 40.0
314	2009	AMD Athlon II X4 620 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X4 620	$ 60.0
315	2011	AMD Athlon II X4 631 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X4 631	$ 80.0
316	2009	AMD Phenom II X2 545 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X2 545	$ 44.0
317	2009	AMD Phenom II X2 B55 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X2 B55	$ 48.0
318	2009	AMD Phenom II X3 720 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X3 720	$ 70. 0
319	2010	AMD Phenom II X3 B73 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X3 B73	$ 75.0
320	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 810 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 810	$ 116.0
321	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 910 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 910	$ 100.0
322	2010	AMD Phenom II X4 910e >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 910e	$ 157.0
323	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E6750 @ 2.66GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6750	$ 13.0
324	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E7200 @ 2. 53GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E7200	$ 75.0
325	2008	Intel Core2 Quad Q9450 @ 2.66GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q9450	$ 335.0
326	2015	Intel Pentium G4500 @ 3.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G4500	$ 85.3
327	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6400+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 6400+	$ 260.0
328	2009	AMD Athlon 7850 Dual-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 7850	$ 209.7
329	2009	AMD Athlon II X2 245 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 245	$ 35. 0
330	2010	AMD Athlon II X2 B22 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 B22	$ 36.0
331	2009	AMD Athlon II X3 425 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X3 425	$ 104.2
332	2008	AMD Phenom 9950 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9950	$ 180.0
333	2009	AMD Phenom II X3 710 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X3 710	$ 84.5
334	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 805 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 805	$ 174.0
335	2009	AMD Phenom II X4 905e >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X4 905e	$ 212. 4
336	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E4700 @ 2.60GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E4700	$ 100.0
337	2010	Intel Core2 Duo E6700 @ 2.66GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6700	$ 30.0
338	2009	Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 @ 2.66GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q8400	$ 99.5
339	2008	Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 @ 2.66GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q9400	$ 34.0
340	2015	Intel Pentium G3260 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3260	$ 105.0
341	2016	AMD Athlon X4 845 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon X4 845	$ 50. 0
342	2013	AMD FX-4350 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-4350	$ 130.0
343	2008	Intel Core2 Quad Q6700 @ 2.66GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q6700	$ 45.0
344	2009	Intel Core2 Quad Q8300 @ 2.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q8300	$ 50.0
345	2008	Intel Core2 Quad Q9300 @ 2.50GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q9300	$ 50.0
346	2014	Intel Pentium G3250 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3250	$ 110.0
347	2013	Intel Pentium G3420 @ 3. 20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3420	$ 110.0
348	2013	Intel Pentium G3430 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3430	$ 90.0
349	2014	Intel Pentium G3440 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3440	$ 159.9
350	2015	Intel Pentium G4400 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G4400	$ 80.0
351	2009	AMD Athlon 7750 Dual-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 7750	$ 148.7
352	2009	AMD Athlon II X2 215 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 215	$ 12. 0
353	2010	AMD Athlon II X2 220 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 220	$ 32.2
354	2009	AMD Athlon II X2 240 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon II X2 240	$ 35.0
355	2017	AMD Athlon X4 950 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon X4 950	$ 60.0
356	2012	AMD FX-4300 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-4300	$ 53.4
357	2008	AMD Phenom 9750 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9750	$ 60.0
358	2008	AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9850	$ 50. 0
359	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E6600 @ 2.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6600	$ 15.0
360	2014	Intel Pentium G2140 @ 3.30GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G2140	$ 50.0
361	2009	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5800+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5800+	$ 25.0
362	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 6000+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 6000+	$ 46.0
363	2016	AMD Athlon X4 880K >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon X4 880K	$ 90.0
364	2013	AMD FX-4200 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-4200	$ 228. 2
365	2010	AMD Phenom 9450e Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9450e	$ 105.0
366	2008	AMD Phenom 9550 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9550	$ 40.0
367	2009	AMD Phenom 9600B Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9600B	$ 147.2
368	2008	AMD Phenom 9650 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9650	$ 55.0
369	2009	AMD Phenom II X3 705e >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom II X3 705e	$ 152.3
370	2010	Intel Core i3-560 @ 3. 33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-560	$ 30.0
371	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E4600 @ 2.40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E4600	$ 158.0
372	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E6550 @ 2.33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6550	$ 15.0
373	2014	Intel Pentium G3240 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3240	$ 80.0
374	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5200+	$ 53.1
375	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5400+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5400+	$ 53. 0
376	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5600+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5600+	$ 150.0
377	2009	AMD Athlon 7550 Dual-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 7550	$ 60.0
378	2012	AMD FX-4170 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-4170	$ 100.0
379	2009	AMD Phenom 8600 Triple-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 8600	$ 53.0
380	2009	AMD Phenom 8600B Triple-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 8600B	$ 53.0
381	2008	AMD Phenom 8650 Triple-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 8650	$ 50. 0
382	2008	AMD Phenom 9500 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9500	$ 60.0
383	2008	AMD Phenom 9600 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9600	$ 50.0
384	2009	Intel Core2 Duo E6400 @ 2.13GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6400	$ 20.0
385	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E6420 @ 2.13GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6420	$ 50.0
386	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E4500 @ 2.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E4500	$ 40.0
387	2008	Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 @ 2. 40GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q6600	$ 40.0
388	2008	Intel Core2 Quad Q8200 @ 2.33GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Q8200	$ 23.0
389	2013	Intel Pentium G2130 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G2130	$ 50.0
390	2013	Intel Pentium G3220 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G3220	$ 120.0
391	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5200+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5200+	$ 53.1
392	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5400+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5400+	$ 53. 0
393	2014	AMD Athlon X4 860K >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon X4 860K	$ 64.0
394	2016	AMD Athlon X4 870K >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon X4 870K	$ 80.0
395	2011	AMD FX-4100 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-4100	$ 130.0
396	2012	AMD FX-4130 Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs FX-4130	$ 76.0
397	2010	Intel Core i3-550 @ 3.20GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-550	$ 180.0
398	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5000+	$ 331. 5
399	2009	AMD Athlon Dual Core 5000B >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon Dual 5000B	$ 95.0
400	2015	AMD Athlon X4 840 >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon X4 840	$ 78.7
401	2011	AMD E2-3200 APU >> compare i7-4790K vs E2-3200 APU	$ 8.0
402	2008	AMD Phenom 8450 Triple-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 8450	$ 30.0
403	2009	AMD Phenom 9350e Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9350e	$ 3,382.1
404	2009	AMD Phenom X3 8550 >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom X3 8550	$ 170. 0
405	2010	Intel Core i3-540 @ 3.07GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-540	$ 21.0
406	2013	Intel Pentium G2030 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G2030	$ 41.0
407	2012	Intel Pentium G2120 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G2120	$ 46.0
408	2012	Intel Pentium G870 @ 3.10GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G870	$ 97.0
409	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 5000+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 5000+	$ 331.5
410	2009	AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 5000	$ 100. 0
411	2010	AMD Athlon 5200 Dual-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 5200	$ 30.0
412	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4600+	$ 360.0
413	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4800+	$ 460.0
414	2009	AMD Phenom 9150e Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9150e	$ 40.0
415	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E4400 @ 2.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E4400	$ 9.0
416	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E6320 @ 1. 86GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6320	$ 50.0
417	2011	Intel Pentium G860 @ 3.00GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G860	$ 30.0
418	2009	AMD Athlon 5000 Dual-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 5000	$ 100.0
419	2010	AMD Athlon 5200 Dual-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 5200	$ 30.0
420	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4600+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4600+	$ 360.0
421	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4800+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4800+	$ 460. 0
422	2010	Intel Core i3-530 @ 2.93GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs i3-530	$ 20.0
423	2013	Intel Pentium G2020 @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G2020	$ 32.9
424	2011	Intel Pentium G850 @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G850	$ 30.0
425	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4200+	$ 130.0
426	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4400+	$ 60.0
427	2009	AMD Phenom 8250e Triple-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 8250e	$ 47. 0
428	2009	AMD Phenom 9100e Quad-Core >> compare i7-4790K vs Phenom 9100e	$ 40.0
429	2009	Intel Core2 Duo E4300 @ 1.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E4300	$ 158.0
430	2008	Intel Core2 Duo E6300 @ 1.86GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs E6300	$ 13.0
431	2013	Intel Pentium G2010 @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G2010	$ 34.9
432	2012	Intel Pentium G645 @ 2.90GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G645	$ 95.0
433	2011	Intel Pentium G840 @ 2. 80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G840	$ 35.0
434	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4200+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4200+	$ 130.0
435	2008	AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core 4400+ >> compare i7-4790K vs Athlon 64 X2 Dual 4400+	$ 60.0
436	2012	Intel Pentium G640 @ 2.80GHz >> compare i7-4790K vs Pentium G640	$ 25.0

AMD Radeon R5 M230 in 5 Benchmarks

It is time to review AMD Radeon R5 M230 benchmark performance. The base clock speed is 855 MHz, whilst its speed in turbo boost and supplementary overclocking (maximum) is 855 MHz.

AMD Radeon R5 M230 process technology is 28 nm that is a good result of the release date.

AMD manufacture has equipped graphic chips with 16 GB/s bandwidth and 855 MHz clock speed. AMD Radeon R5 M230 maximum memory is 4 GB.

We recommend you learn all technical specifications in separate sections for a common understanding and high-speed of AMD Radeon R5 M230.

2.9
Out of 28
CMPTEK score

Compare AMD Radeon R5 M230

VS

NVIDIA Quadro P520 (213 views)

Intel UHD Graphics 600 (192 views)

Intel UHD Graphics 620 (190 views)

AMD Radeon RX Vega 7 (188 views)

NVIDIA Quadro T1000 (178 views)

NVIDIA GeForce MX330 (176 views)

NVIDIA GeForce GT 635M (174 views)

Intel UHD Graphics 630 (173 views)

AMD Radeon RX Vega 10 (172 views)

Intel HD Graphics 4600 (172 views)

General Information

Here is the release date, code name, core architecture, launch and current price. It is the general information to start learning AMD Radeon R5 M230.

Place in performance rating:		937
Architecture:		GCN
Code name:		Jet
Type:		Laptop
Release date:		7 January 2014 (8 years ago)
GPU code name:		Jet / Sun
Market segment:		Laptop

AMD Radeon R5 M230 — Technical Specifications

Here are key features that determine AMD Radeon R5 M230 performance in benchmarks and other apps. The higher the figures are, the better it is. Please pay attention to all the characteristics provided. For example, the clock frequency directly affects the high-speed, and processing data and performing calculations (e.g, for mining) depend on the number of transistors. Also, check the TDP figure, because modern graphics cards may require a powerful PSU.

Pipelines:		320
Core clock speed:		855 MHz
Boost Clock:		855 MHz
Transistor count:		690 million
Manufacturing process technology:		28 nm
Texture fill rate:		17. 10
Floating-point performance:		547.2 gflops
Compute units:		5
Pipelines / CUDA cores:		320
Boost clock speed:		855 MHz
Number of transistors:		690 million

AMD Radeon R5 M230 — Dimensions and Compatibility

Nowadays, it is very important to know the dimensions — length, width and height of a desktop graphics card — and understand which power connector is included in the package. Also, please pay attention to the PCIe interface.

Interface:		PCIe 3.0 x8
Bus support:		PCIe 3.0 x8

AMD Radeon R5 M230 — GPU RAM Frequency and Speed

Graphics Card Ram is a key element in computing and data storage — type, size, clock frequency and bandwidth — that directly affect the speed of work in gaming and working apps, which are currently quite demanding on graphics card resources. Note please the memory standard. The higher it is, the better it is. Let’s learn more about AMD Radeon R5 M230 video memory specifications.

Memory type:		DDR3
Maximum RAM amount:		4 GB
Memory bus width:		64 Bit
Memory clock speed:		1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth:		16 GB/s
Shared memory:		—

AMD Radeon R5 M230 — Port and Display Support

In most cases, today all the problems connector compatibility can be solved with adapters or backwards-compatible cables such as HDMI / DVI. But, for general information, you learn below which ports are supported by AMD Radeon R5 M230.

Display Connectors:		No outputs
Eyefinity:		+

AMD Radeon R5 M230 — Technologies

Healthy competition drives progress, so each manufacturer tries to surprise its consumer with special technologies available in this graphics card. This can be useful in graphics or gaming apps.

AppAcceleration:		+
HD3D:		+
PowerTune:		+
TrueAudio:		—
ZeroCore:		+
Enduro:		—
DualGraphics:		1
Switchable graphics:		1
PowerPlay:		+

AMD Radeon R5 M230 — API support

Here are general standards for DirectX and other unified complexes for the development of 3D images supported by AMD Radeon R5 M230 .

DirectX:		DirectX® 11
OpenGL:		4.4
Shader Model:		5.1
OpenCL:		Not Listed
Mantle:		+

AMD Radeon R5 M230 — Mining hashrates

Bitcoin / BTC (SHA256):

49 Mh/s

Overall AMD Radeon R5 M230 Gaming Performance

Find out to what extent AMD Radeon R5 M230 is suitable for gaming! We have compiled a database of popular games and their system requirements* that allows you to quickly and easily estimate its gaming performance at different screen resolutions. Graphics card gaming test is based on FPS. * There is a little margin error in the estimation of data.

Select games to view
Horizon Zero DawnDeath StrandingF1 2020Gears TacticsDoom EternalHunt ShowdownEscape from TarkovHearthstoneRed Dead Redemption 2Star Wars Jedi Fallen OrderNeed for Speed HeatCall of Duty Modern Warfare 2019GRID 2019Ghost Recon BreakpointFIFA 20Borderlands 3ControlF1 2019League of LegendsTotal War: Three KingdomsRage 2Anno 1800The Division 2Dirt Rally 2.0AnthemMetro ExodusFar Cry New DawnApex LegendsJust Cause 4Darksiders IIIFarming Simulator 19Battlefield VFallout 76Hitman 2Call of Duty Black Ops 4Assassin´s Creed OdysseyForza Horizon 4FIFA 19Shadow of the Tomb RaiderStrange BrigadeF1 2018Monster Hunter WorldThe Crew 2Far Cry 5World of Tanks enCoreX-Plane 11.11Kingdom Come: DeliveranceFinal Fantasy XV BenchmarkFortniteStar Wars Battlefront 2Need for Speed PaybackCall of Duty WWIIAssassin´s Creed OriginsWolfenstein II: The New ColossusDestiny 2ELEXThe Evil Within 2Middle-earth: Shadow of WarFIFA 18Ark Survival EvolvedF1 2017Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds (2017)Team Fortress 2Dirt 4Rocket LeaguePreyMass Effect AndromedaGhost Recon WildlandsFor HonorResident Evil 7Dishonored 2Call of Duty Infinite WarfareTitanfall 2Farming Simulator 17Civilization VIBattlefield 1Mafia 3Deus Ex Mankind DividedMirror’s Edge CatalystOverwatchDoomAshes of the SingularityHitman 2016The DivisionFar Cry PrimalXCOM 2Rise of the Tomb RaiderRainbow Six SiegeAssassin’s Creed SyndicateStar Wars BattlefrontFallout 4Call of Duty: Black Ops 3Anno 2205World of WarshipsDota 2 RebornThe Witcher 3Dirt RallyGTA VDragon Age: InquisitionFar Cry 4Assassin’s Creed UnityCall of Duty: Advanced WarfareAlien: IsolationMiddle-earth: Shadow of MordorSims 4Wolfenstein: The New OrderThe Elder Scrolls OnlineThiefX-Plane 10. 25Battlefield 4Total War: Rome IICompany of Heroes 2Metro: Last LightBioShock InfiniteStarCraft II: Heart of the SwarmSimCityTomb RaiderCrysis 3Hitman: AbsolutionCall of Duty: Black Ops 2World of Tanks v8Borderlands 2Counter-Strike: GODirt ShowdownDiablo IIIMass Effect 3The Elder Scrolls V: SkyrimBattlefield 3Deus Ex Human RevolutionStarCraft 2Metro 2033Stalker: Call of PripyatGTA IV — Grand Theft AutoLeft 4 DeadTrackmania Nations ForeverCall of Duty 4 — Modern WarfareSupreme Commander — FA BenchCrysis — GPU BenchmarkWorld in Conflict — BenchmarkHalf Life 2 — Lost Coast BenchmarkWorld of WarcraftDoom 3Quake 3 Arena — Timedemo

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Horizon Zero Dawn (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Death Stranding (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

F1 2020 (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Gears Tactics (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Doom Eternal (2020)

low

1280×720

med.

1920×1080

high

1920×1080

ultra

1920×1080

QHD

2560×1440

4K

3840×2160

Legend
5	Stutter – How graphics cards operate in the game is being examined for the time being. As per interpolation of the similar graphics cards showing low frame rates, the game is possible to lag.
	May Stutter – How graphics cards operate in the game is being examined for the time being. As per interpolation of the similar graphics cards showing low frame rates, the game is possible to lag.
30	Fluent – In considering all graphics benchmarks, the game speed is likely to be 25 fps or more.
40	Fluent – In considering all graphics benchmarks, the game speed is likely to be 35 fps or more.
60	Fluent – In considering all graphics benchmarks, the game speed is likely to be 58 fps or more.
	May Run Fluently – How graphics cards operate in the game is being examined for the time being. As per interpolation of the similar graphics cards showing low frame rates, the game is possible to lag.
?	Uncertain – The graphics card testing has revealed a slower card might ensure a high and stable frame rate.
	Uncertain – How graphics cards operate in the game is being examined for the time being. The interpolation in the same category is not possible.
The value depicts the average frame rate. Hovering over the value, you can get individual results.

AMD Radeon R5 M230 in Benchmarks

Let’s sum up the review by comparing the benchmarks results of AMD Radeon R5 M230 5 competitive models similar in technical specifications. The first block is the overall result for all benchmarks, then all the others, which this particular model was tested on.

The higher the benchmark score, the faster a video card performs in graphics apps and modern games. If you have any additional questions, please leave them in the comments, we will definitely help!

Overall benchmark performance

AMD Radeon HD 8450G

NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX

AMD Radeon R5 M230

AMD Radeon HD 6490M

AMD Radeon HD 8470D

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

The 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU test is designed for mid-range laptops and home PCs with integrated video graphics. The test uses the DirectX 11 engine, which is limited by Direct3D 10 capabilities. Accordingly, Cloud Gate is best suited for testing modern entry-level systems and legacy DX10-enabled GPUs.

AMD Radeon HD 8570M

AMD Radeon HD 8670M

AMD Radeon R5 M230

AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

AMD Radeon R6 (Carrizo)

3DMark Fire Strike Score

Fire Strike, Fire Strike Extreme, Fire Strike Ultra. Fire Strike includes two graphics tests, a physics test and a combined test that stresses the CPU and GPU.

NVIDIA GeForce 710M

AMD Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8750M Dual Graphics

AMD Radeon R5 M230

AMD Radeon HD 7660G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics

NVIDIA Quadro K610M

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

3DMark Fire Strike for Graphics Cards helps you determine performance in a state-of-the-art synthetic test that consists of two levels — physical and combined testing.

AMD Radeon HD 6620G + HD 7670M Dual Graphics

AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

AMD Radeon R5 M230

NVIDIA GeForce GT 710

NVIDIA GeForce 710M

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

The result of the 3DMark 11 benchmark evaluation supports tessellation, compute shaders and graphics card multithreading will show which graphics card model is better and faster in games. The higher the score of the video card in the 3DMark 11 benchmark, the better.

AMD Radeon HD 8570D

AMD Radeon HD 8550G

AMD Radeon R5 M230

AMD Radeon HD 6750M

Intel Iris Graphics 5100

Passmark GPU

Passmark is an effective benchmark that displays true results on the speed of data processing by GPU cores. We present the results of the evaluation of the performance of a video card in the modern Passmark benchmark, which evaluates the performance of a video card using its own rendering algorithms. The higher the score, the more powerful the graphics card.

AMD Radeon HD 8450G

NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX

AMD Radeon R5 M230

AMD Radeon HD 8470D

NVIDIA GeForce 9800M GTS

2.9
Out of 28
CMPTEK score

 

Radeon R5 230 [in 1 benchmark]

Radeon R5 230

• PCIe 2.0 x16 interface
• Core frequency 0
• Video memory size 4096 MB
• Memory type DDR3
• Memory frequency 0
• Maximum resolution

Description

AMD started Radeon R5 230 sales 3 April 2014. This is TeraScale 2 architecture desktop card based on 40 nm manufacturing process and primarily aimed at office use. It has 4 GB of DDR3 memory at , and coupled with a 64-bit interface, this creates a bandwidth of 10.67 GB / s.

In terms of compatibility, this is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card. The length of the reference version is 168 mm. An additional N/A power cable is required for connection, and the power consumption is 19W.

It provides poor performance in tests and games at the level of

0.75%

from the leader, which is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti.

Radeon R5
230

or

GeForce RTX
3090 Ti

General information

Information about the type (desktop or laptop) and architecture of the Radeon R5 230, as well as when sales started and cost at the time.

9000 value of other cards.

• 0
• 50
• 100

Features

Radeon R5 230’s general performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core clock, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. They indirectly speak of Radeon R5 230’s performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider its benchmark and gaming test results.

Performance ranking	1058
Price now	115 $	of 49999 (A100 SXM4)

Number of stream processors	160	of 18432 (AD102)
Number of transistors
performance with a floating point	200.0.0 GFLOPS	from 16384 (Radeon Pro Duo)

compatibility and dimensions

Information on Radeon R5 230 compatibility with other computer components. Useful for example when choosing the configuration of a future computer or to upgrade an existing one. For desktop video cards, these are the interface and connection bus (compatibility with the motherboard), the physical dimensions of the video card (compatibility with the motherboard and case), additional power connectors (compatibility with the power supply).

RAM

Parameters of the memory installed on Radeon R5 230 — type, size, bus, frequency and bandwidth. For video cards built into the processor that do not have their own memory, a shared part of the RAM is used.

Memorial type	DDR3
Maximum memory	4 GB	of 128 (Radeon InstinTin Mi250x) AppAcceleration — CrossFire 1 Enduro — HD3D — PowerTune — TrueAudio 9005 Overall benchmark performance This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly. R5 230 0.75 Passmark Passmark This is a very common benchmark included in the Passmark PerformanceTest package. He gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation by running four separate tests for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the latter is done in 4K resolution if possible), and a few more tests using DirectCompute. Benchmark coverage: 26% R5 230 221 Game tests FPS in popular games on the Radeon R5 230, as well as compliance with system requirements. Remember that the official requirements of the developers do not always match the data of real tests. Average FPS Popular games Relative performance Radeon R5 230 overall performance compared to its closest competitors in desktop graphics cards. AMD Radeon HD 8280E 109.33 ATI Radeon HD 4550 106.67 AMD Radeon E6465 105.33 AMD Radeon R5 230 100 ATI Radeon HD 4650 98.67 ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO 96 NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 96 Competitor from NVIDIA We believe that the nearest equivalent to Radeon R5 230 from NVIDIA is GeForce GT 220, which is slower by 4% on average and lower by 6 positions in our rating. GeForce GT 220 Compare Here are some of NVIDIA’s closest competitors to the Radeon R5 230: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT 117.33 NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GS 114. 67 NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT 110.67 AMD Radeon R5 230 100 NVIDIA GeForce GT 220 96 NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 90.67 NVIDIA GeForce 7950 GX2 90.67 Other video cards Here we recommend several video cards that are more or less similar in performance to the reviewed one. Radeon E6465 Compare Radeon HD 6450 Compare Radeon HD 8280E Compare Radeon HD 8330E Compare GeForce GT 520 Compare HD Graphics Compare Recommended Processors According to our statistics, these processors are most often used with the Radeon R5 230. A9 9425 4.9% A8 6600K 3.2% A8 7410 2% Core i3 9100F 1.7% A8 6410 1.6% Core i3 3220 1.6% Core i5 2400 1.6% Core i3 2100 1.5% Core i5 3470 1.4% Core 2 Quad Q6600 1. 4% User rating Here you can see the rating of the video card by users, as well as put your own rating. Tips and comments Here you can ask a question about the Radeon R5 230, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch. Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. who will challenge iGPU dominance? GECID.com. Page 1 ::>Video cards >2021 > Comparison of AMD Radeon R5 230 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 with GDDR5 vs UHD 630 and Vega 3 integrated graphics: who will challenge iGPU dominance? 05-05-2021 Page 1 Page 2 One page In a recent article, we compared the integrated graphics of Vega 11, Vega 8 and Vega 3, and then evaluated the capabilities of the GT 710 with 1 GB of DDR3 memory against the Intel UHD 630 and UHD 610. R5 230 and GeForce GT 710. Will more memory affect the results and how will the transition from DDR3 to GDDR5 affect? At the same time, let’s compare with the cost of processors and draw a conclusion about the advisability of buying these video cards in general. They themselves are provided for the test by the online store Telemart.ua, which has a wide selection of components for any budget. In subsequent materials, we will add slightly more expensive and productive video cards to the comparison. In the meantime, let’s introduce the main participants of today’s race. The Sapphire Radeon R5 230 Low Profile is one of the most affordable discrete models on the market. It is made in a low-profile format and is equipped with only a radiator for heat dissipation. Underneath is an ancient 40nm AMD Caicos PRO GPU that has gone through several reincarnations. It is equipped with 160 stream processors and is paired with 2 GB of DDR3 memory with an effective frequency of 1333 MHz. Throughput does not exceed 11 GB / s with a 64-bit bus. The more expensive and potentially faster model, the ASUS GeForce GT 710 , also uses a low profile design and a passive cooler for better compatibility with compact multimedia systems. But it boasts 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with an effective frequency of 5 GHz and a bandwidth of 40 GB / s with a 64-bit bus. Its GK208 GPU has 192 CUDA cores. To complete the picture, we added to the comparison the results of the MSI GeForce GT 710 with 1 GB of DDR3 memory and integrated UHD Graphics 630 video cores in the Core i3-10100 and Vega 3 from Athlon 240GE. The test stand is largely the same, but there are some minor changes. Let’s run through them. The motherboard based on the top chipset ASUS TUF GAMING Z490-PLUS (WI-FI) was taken primarily to speed up the memory. Processor not hot, but 2-section dropsy was already attached to the assembly Xilence Performance A+ LiQuRizer LQ240 White ARGB . She was left for convenience. The PATRIOT VIPER STEEL 16 GB kit passed the casting due to the convenience of activating the DDR4-3200 mode in order to put the integrated and discrete video cards in the same conditions. We took SSD GOODRAM IRDM ULTIMATE X with a capacity of 500 GB for the operating system. Most of the games were thrown on a terabyte solid state GOODRAM IRDM . The new affordable power supply Seasonic A12-600 fits perfectly into such an assembly with an efficiency of up to 85%. Its low price tag is explained by a 3-year warranty and a plain bearing fan. All these components fit into the Xilence X512 RGB White case. It supports graphics cards up to 355mm long, CPU coolers up to 165mm high, and up to three FLCs. And to improve the temperature inside, they added one fan for blowing. The 27-inch GIGABYTE M27F IPS-monitor with a fast 1-millisecond matrix helped to display the picture. If you are interested in material on budget video cards, then you might also be interested in inexpensive peripherals from Defender. During the tests, we got acquainted with the following devices. Membrane keyboard Defender Butcher is comfortable for gaming and typing. There is a palm area and drainage holes to remove spilled liquids. Design mouse Defender Invoker — for an amateur, but it is comfortable in the hand. An optical sensor with a maximum resolution of 3200 DPI does not cause any complaints, as well as the convenience of sliding on a branded rug. Headset Defender Lester fully corresponds to the price. Good materials and soft ear pads are used for it. The sound quality is average, and not everyone sits comfortably on the head. Gameplay recorded by external system with AVerMedia Live Gamer 4K i.e. without loss of performance. Let’s start the test session with Apex Legends at 720p at a very low preset. Switching to a more capacious and faster memory promises a 7-14% bonus for the GT 710, but in practice this is only 1-2 FPS. But the R5 230 from the very first test is prescribed in frank outsiders. Switching to a higher resolution lowers the performance of all participants. The 2GB GT 710 is 1-3 FPS ahead of the 1GB one, but we get a slideshow anyway. It lags behind the leader in the face of UHD 630 by at least 27%. The R5 230 can play CS:GO more or less tolerably at very low settings at 900p. But on a 2-gigabyte GT 710, the average speed will be 2 times higher. The leader is still the integrated video core UHD 630. The transition to low settings in Full HD eliminates the superiority of GDDR5 memory over DDR3. If at 900p the difference between these two versions of the GT 710 reached 50%, now it does not exceed 20%. Vega 3 outperforms the fastest of them by 23% in average speed, but is inferior to it in rare and very rare events statistics. But in Dota 2 Vega 3 outperforms the 2 GB GT 710 by at least 11%. For the R5 230, running games in Full HD is still a daunting task, and it gets noticeably dull at some points. For it, you should go down to 720p — this will not save you from jamming, but it will make the video sequence a little nicer. Forza Horizon 4 crashed when loading the game world on a system with R5 230. In other configurations, it started, but in all cases it could not do without brakes. The improved video buffer guarantees a 17-27% bonus compared to two GT 710s, although in fact in both cases we get less than 20 FPS. The move to 900p makes things worse. In terms of average speed, Vega 3 takes the lead — it is 2 times faster than the 2 GB GT 710 and almost 3 times faster than the 1 GB one. Review of the video card AMD Radeon R5 230 We are all used to the fact that most of the reviews of modern computer hardware are dedicated to the top segment. Although it is distinguished by the high performance of the presented components, it cannot boast of affordable prices. But the user does not always need top-end or even average PC parts in terms of their functionality. For example, for a video card, it is enough to provide a little more performance than the solution integrated on the motherboard. And the AMD Radeon R5 230 is a prime example of this — let’s look at this budget video card in more detail. Video cards based on this chipset from Asus and PowerColor are the most widely represented on the domestic market. Additionally, there are mobile solutions that are used in laptops (index M230), but their consideration is a topic for a separate article. Key features This is a classic budget video card made using the 40 nm process technology. Supports core operation up to 625 MHz and operates with DDR3 video memory up to 1 GB. Of course, these figures are taken from the official website of AMD and are purely theoretical — in fact, the performance will be slightly lower. The best proof of this thesis is the fact that almost all models of this line are made with a passive cooling system. Of course, the user is a solid plus from this — there is no source of additional noise in the case and there is no need to clean the additional fan during preventive disassembly of the PC. But a person who understands the issue perfectly understands that the presence of a factory passive cooling system for the chipset and memory chips indicates a rather mediocre performance of the hardware. 160 shader processors interact with the memory bus, 64 bits wide. The DirectX 11 and OpenGL 4.1 standards are fully supported, the type of interface for interacting with the motherboard is PCI Express version 2. 0. It does not need additional power, the minimum power of the PC power supply for stable operation of the video card is only 400 watts. As a special «bun» we should mention an impressive number of external interfaces of the card — VGA, DVI-D and HDMI. Theoretically, this implies the ability to connect three monitors to a PC at once. In practice, such a need rarely arises — two screens are usually enough to solve any problem. The maximum resolution that the device produces is 2560 x 1600, the maximum declared power consumption is 75 watts. Performance test results Obviously, high performance is hard to expect from a budget solution, but let’s see what results this video card will show in games that have become classics for a long time. And both from the point of view of the gameplay, and from the point of view of testing the performance of video cards. The stand is a PC based on the GIGABYTE G1.Sniper 3 motherboard with an installed Intel Core i7-3770K processor and two G. Skill TridentX F3-2400C10D-16GTX 8 GB RAM slots each. Hard drive — HyperX Savage SSD 480 GB, power supply — Seasonic X-1050 Gold, stand operating system type — Microsoft Windows 7 64-bit SP1. For a more correct assessment of the performance of the video card, the latest drivers were also downloaded and installed on the website of the official manufacturer. Classic 3D Mark version 11 scored 625 points, Aliens vs. Predator at maximum settings, a performance of 5.4 fps was achieved — the first bell. The rest of the high-performance applications were able to provide a similar result: the game Metro 2033 produced 3.2 fps, Lost Planet 2 — 2.9 fps, Sniper Elite V2 — 5 fps. The third Far Cry was chosen as a control test «in the head» — the performance was 1.2 fps! Skyrim produced 6 frames per second — which is the best praise of the optimizers of this project. The values ​​for other games (Crysis 2, Colin MCRae: DiRT 3, Battlefield 3) also did not exceed five frames per second. The conclusion is simple — the gaming capabilities of the AMD Radeon R5 230 are minimal. Of course, in terms of its capabilities, it is head and shoulders above the AMD Radeon HD 6450, which it planned to replace in the budget video card market. But already the Radeon R7 240 in question loses at least twice. During the tests, the temperature of the main components of the card was also measured. Under maximum load, it was 73 degrees Celsius, which is quite close to the threshold value for a system with passive cooling. However, such loads did not make up the full testing time, and at the time of downtime, the temperature dropped to quite acceptable 54 degrees. As for the overclocking potential of the video card, there is a very impressive one. Without games with power and voltage increase, software alone managed to overclock the processor from 625 to 815 and the memory from 667 to 870 MHz, respectively. On the one hand, the result was a 30% increase in the performance of the video card, and on the other hand, the need to use an active cooling system, since the standard radiator could not cope with the increased load. Is the game worth the candle? The performance increase by a third according to the new tests also increases the fps values ​​in games. Where it was 6, it became 8 — but it cannot be said that this made playing much more comfortable. Comfortable 25 fps will be achieved only for games of the last decade, so this video card cannot be recommended to modern gamers. Application area of ​​this video card But we can safely recommend it to those who need its main advantages. These include small dimensions, passive cooling system, impressive overclocking potential of the video card and low cost. An ideal solution for an office PC that for some reason lacks the performance of an integrated graphics card. And no less ideal — for a home multimedia center of the initial price segment. Playing multimedia content, HD video, comfortable work with the most common office applications and surfing the Web — these are the areas in which this video card reveals itself from the best side. But modern games don’t. And one should not expect exorbitant performance from a solution that was considered budget back in 2014 — we have a classic “workhorse” of the initial price range. As for the delivery package, everything is quite predictable here. In the boxed version, in addition to the video card, you will find a disk with drivers and software, as well as a quick start guide. It is clear that for the most correct, stable and optimal performance of the video card, the drivers should be updated promptly. You can do this both directly on the video card manufacturer’s website and on the AMD portal — the most up-to-date driver versions can always be found on these two resources. And if you plan to install this video card in an HTPC case, then buy a plastic interface panel cover in advance, which is not included in the standard kit. AMD Radeon R5 230 specifications and benchmarks — Testing Radeon r5 230 2gb gaming test AMD started Radeon R5 230 sales on April 3, 2014 . This is a desktop video card based on TeraScale 2 architecture and 40 nm manufacturing process, primarily designed for office use. It has 4 GB of DDR3 memory at a frequency, and coupled with a 64-bit interface, this creates a bandwidth of 10.67 GB / s. In terms of compatibility, this is a single-slot PCIe 2.0 x16 card. The length of the reference version is 168 mm. An additional N/A power cable is required for connection, and the power consumption is 19Tue It delivers poor benchmark and gaming performance on par with From the leader, which is the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti. General information Type (desktop or laptop) and architecture details of the Radeon R5 230, as well as when sales started and cost at the time. Place in the performance ranking 1032 Value for money 0.01 Architecture TeraScale 2 GPU Caicos Type Desktop Design Reference Release date April 3, 2014 (8 years ago) Price now 119$ From 49999 (A100 SXM4) To obtain an index, we compare the characteristics of video cards and their cost, taking into account the cost of other cards. Specifications Radeon R5 230’s general performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core clock, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. They indirectly speak of Radeon R5 230’s performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider its benchmark and gaming test results. Number of stream processors 160 From 18432 (AD102) Number of transistors 370 million From 14400 (GeForce GTX 1080 SLI (Mobile)) Process 40 nm Out of 5 (Apple M1 GPU) Power consumption (TDP) 19W Out of 900 (Tesla S2050) Texturing speed 5.000 From 939.8 (h200 SXM5) Floating point performance 200.0 gflops Of 16384 (Radeon Pro Duo) Compatibility & Dimensions Information on Radeon R5 230 compatibility with other computer components. Useful for example when choosing the configuration of a future computer or to upgrade an existing one. For desktop video cards, these are the interface and connection bus (compatibility with the motherboard), the physical dimensions of the video card (compatibility with the motherboard and case), additional power connectors (compatibility with the power supply). Tire PCIe 1.0 x4 Interface PCIe 2.0 x16 Length 168 mm Thickness 1 slot Additional power connectors N/A RAM The parameters of the memory installed on the Radeon R5 230 — type, size, bus, frequency and bandwidth. For video cards built into the processor that do not have their own memory, a shared part of the RAM is used. Memory type DDR3 Maximum memory 4 GB Of 128 (Radeon Instinct MI250X) Memory bus width 64 bit From 8192 (Radeon Instinct MI250X) Memory bandwidth 10. 67 Gb/s From 14400 (Radeon R7 M260) Video Outputs Lists the video connectors available on the Radeon R5 230. As a rule, this section is relevant only for desktop reference video cards, since for notebook ones the availability of certain video outputs depends on the laptop model. Video connectors 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA Eyefinity 1 HDMI + DisplayPort support — Technologies Technology solutions and APIs supported by the Radeon R5 230 are listed here. You will need this information if your graphics card is required to support specific technologies. AppAcceleration — CrossFire 1 Enduro — HD3D — PowerTune — TrueAudio — ZeroCore — PowerPlay + Audio DDMA — API Support Lists supported Radeon R5 230 APIs, including revisions. DirectX DirectX® 11 Shader Model 5.0 OpenGL 4.4 From 4.6 (GeForce GTX 1080 Mobile)) OpenCL 1.2 Mantle — Benchmarks These are Radeon R5 230 rendering performance benchmark results for non-gaming benchmarks. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest video card at the moment. Overall benchmark performance This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly. Passmark Benchmark coverage: 25% This is a very common benchmark included in the Passmark PerformanceTest package. He gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation by running four separate tests for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the latter is done in 4K resolution if possible), and a few more tests using DirectCompute. Benchmarks These are Radeon R5 230 rendering performance benchmark results for non-gaming benchmarks. The overall score is set from 0 to 100, where 100 corresponds to the fastest video card at the moment. This is our overall performance rating. We regularly improve our algorithms, but if you find any inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in the comments section, we usually fix problems quickly. Passmark Benchmark coverage: 25% This is a very common benchmark included in the Passmark PerformanceTest package. He gives the card a thorough evaluation, running four separate tests for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11, and 12 (the latter being done at 4K when possible), and a few more tests using DirectCompute. RAM. Technical. city ​​ 02/24/2019 4:33:34 2019-02-24 04:33:34 Sources: Https://technical. city/ru/video/Radeon-R5-230 Comparison of AMD Radeon R5 230 and NVIDIA GeForce GT 710 with GDDR5 vs UHD 630 and Vega 3 integrated graphics: who will challenge the iGPU dominance. Page 1 » /> » /> .keyword { color: red; } Radeon r5 230 2gb game test In a recent article, we compared the integrated graphics of Vega 11, Vega 8 and Vega 3, and then compared the performance of the GT 710 with 1 GB of DDR3 memory against the Intel UHD 630 and UHD 610. This time, let’s look at the capabilities of the 2 GB Radeon R5 230 and GeForce GT 710. Will more memory affect the results and how will the transition from DDR3 to GDDR5 affect? At the same time, let’s compare with the cost of processors and draw a conclusion about the advisability of buying these video cards in general. They themselves are provided for testing by the Telemart online store. ua, which has a wide selection of accessories for any budget. In subsequent materials, we will add slightly more expensive and productive video cards to the comparison. In the meantime, let’s introduce the main participants of today’s race. The Sapphire Radeon R5 230 Low Profile is one of the most affordable discrete models on the market. It is made in a low-profile format and is equipped with only a radiator for heat dissipation. Underneath is an ancient 40nm AMD Caicos PRO GPU that has gone through several reincarnations. It is equipped with 160 stream processors and is paired with 2 GB of DDR3 memory with an effective frequency of 1333 MHz. Throughput does not exceed 11 GB / s with a 64-bit bus. The more expensive and potentially faster model, the ASUS GeForce GT 710 , also uses a low profile design and a passive cooler for better compatibility with compact multimedia systems. But it boasts 2 GB of GDDR5 memory with an effective frequency of 5 GHz and a bandwidth of 40 GB / s with a 64-bit bus. Its GK208 GPU has 192 CUDA cores. To complete the picture, we added to the comparison the results of the MSI GeForce GT 710 with 1 GB of DDR3 memory and integrated UHD Graphics 630 video cores in the Core i3-10100 and Vega 3 from Athlon 240GE. The test stand is largely the same, but there are some minor changes. Let’s run through them. The motherboard based on the top chipset ASUS TUF GAMING Z490-PLUS (WI-FI) was taken primarily to speed up the memory. Processor not hot, but 2-section dropsy was already attached to the assembly Xilence Performance A+ LiQuRizer LQ240 White ARGB . She was left for convenience. The PATRIOT VIPER STEEL 16 GB kit passed the casting due to the convenience of activating the DDR4-3200 mode in order to put the integrated and discrete video cards in the same conditions. We took SSD GOODRAM IRDM ULTIMATE X with a capacity of 500 GB for the operating system. Most of the games were thrown on a terabyte solid state GOODRAM IRDM . The new affordable power supply Seasonic A12-600 fits perfectly into such an assembly with an efficiency of up to 85%. Its low price tag is explained by a 3-year warranty and a plain bearing fan. All these components fit into the Xilence X512 RGB White case. It supports graphics cards up to 355mm long, CPU coolers up to 165mm high, and up to three FLCs. And to improve the temperature inside, they added one fan for blowing. The 27-inch GIGABYTE M27F IPS-monitor with a fast 1-millisecond matrix helped to display the picture. If you are interested in material on budget video cards, then you might also be interested in inexpensive peripherals from Defender. During the tests, we got acquainted with the following devices. Membrane keyboard Defender Butcher is comfortable for gaming and typing. There is a palm area and drainage holes to remove spilled liquids. Design mouse Defender Invoker — for an amateur, but it is comfortable in the hand. An optical sensor with a maximum resolution of 3200 DPI does not cause any complaints, as well as the convenience of sliding on a branded rug. Headset Defender Lester fully corresponds to the price. Good materials and soft ear pads are used for it. The sound quality is average, and not everyone sits comfortably on the head. Gameplay recorded by external system with AVerMedia Live Gamer 4K , i.e. without performance loss. Let’s start the test session with Apex Legends at 720p at a very low preset. Switching to a more capacious and faster memory promises a 7-14% bonus for the GT 710, but in practice this is only 1-2 FPS. But the R5 230 from the very first test is prescribed in frank outsiders. Switching to a higher resolution lowers the performance of all participants. The 2GB GT 710 is 1-3 FPS ahead of the 1GB one, but we get a slideshow anyway. It lags behind the leader in the face of UHD 630 by at least 27%. The R5 230 can play CS:GO more or less tolerably at very low settings at 900p. But on a 2-gigabyte GT 710, the average speed will be 2 times higher. The leader is still the integrated video core UHD 630. The transition to low settings in Full HD eliminates the superiority of GDDR5 memory over DDR3. If at 900p the difference between these two versions of the GT 710 reached 50%, now it does not exceed 20%. Vega 3 outperforms the fastest of them by 23% in average speed, but is inferior to it in rare and very rare events statistics. But in Dota 2 Vega 3 outperforms the 2 GB GT 710 by at least 11%. For the R5 230, running games in Full HD is still a daunting task, and it gets noticeably dull at some points. For it, you should go down to 720p — this will not save you from jamming, but it will make the video sequence a little nicer. Forza Horizon 4 crashed when loading the game world on a system with R5 230. In other configurations, it started, but in all cases it could not do without brakes. The improved video buffer guarantees a 17-27% bonus compared to two GT 710s, although in fact in both cases we get less than 20 FPS. The move to 900p makes things worse. In terms of average speed, Vega 3 takes the lead — it is 2 times faster than the 2 GB GT 710 and almost 3 times faster than the 1 GB one. To complete the picture, we added to the comparison the results of the MSI GeForce GT 710 with 1 GB of DDR3 memory and integrated UHD Graphics 630 video cores in the Core i3-10100 and Vega 3 from Athlon 240GE. En. gecid. com 02/27/2018 11:59:27 2018-02-27 11:59:27 Sources: Https://ru. gecid. com/video/sravnenie_amd_radeon_r5_230_i_nvidia_geforce_gt_710_s_gddr5/ AMD Radeon R5 M230 4 GB video card — features, testing, reviews » /> » /> . keyword { color: red; } Radeon r5 230 2gb game test Comparison of Radeon R5 M230 4 GB with similar video cards Last Light, Thief, Alien: Isolation, Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V , Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Radeon R5 M230 GeForce 820M GeForce GT 740M 5.0 out of 10 5.2 out of 10 5.2 out of 10 Graphics Tested on: T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor, Fire Strike Factor. Radeon R5 M230 GeForce 820M GeForce GT 740M 5.3 out of 10 5.4 out of 10 5.8 out of 10 Computing power Testing used: Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation, Particle Simulation, Video Composition, Bitcoin Mining. Radeon R5 M230 GeForce 820M GeForce GT 740M 5.3 out of 10 5.2 out of 10 5.4 out of 10 Performance per Watt Video card tested on: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Dirt3, FarCry 3, Hitman: Absolution, Metro: Last Light, Thief, Alien: Isolation , Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor, Fire Strike Factor, Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation, Particle Simulation, Video Composition, Bitcoin Mining, TDP. Radeon R5 M230 GeForce 820M GeForce GT 740M No data 7.4 out of 10 6.9 out of 10 Price-Performance Video card tested on: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Dirt3, FarCry 3, Hitman: Absolution, Metro: Last Light, Thief, Alien: Isolation, Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3 : Wild Hunt, T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor, Fire Strike Factor, Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation, Particle Simulation, Video Composition, Bitcoin Mining, Amazon System Price. Radeon R5 M230 GeForce 820M GeForce GT 740M 7.2 out of 10 6.6 out of 10 5.3 out of 10 Noise and power Tested using: TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption, Idle Noise Level, Load Noise Level. Tested on: Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Dirt3, FarCry 3, Hitman: Absolution, Metro: Last Light, Thief, Alien: Isolation, Anno 2070, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, Diablo III, Dirt Rally, Dragon Age: Inquisition, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, FIFA 15, FIFA 16, GRID Autosport, Grand Theft Auto V, Sleeping Dogs, Tomb Raider, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt. Radeon R5 M230 GeForce 820M GeForce GT 740M 5.0 out of 10 5.2 out of 10 5.2 out of 10 3 of 10 GeForce 820M 5. Edelmark. en 08/02/2018 4:56:47 2018-08-02 04:56:47 Sources: Https://edelmark. ru/gpu/amd-radeon-r5-m230-4-gb/ amd radeon r5 m230 test in games Author admin Reading 4 min. Views 81 Posted 12/15/2019 Content Watch queue Queue YouTube Premium Do you want to save this video? Complain about video? Did you like it? Didn’t like it? Description View queue Queue Delete all Disable YouTube Premium Do you want to save this video? Complain Complain about video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. Like it? Didn’t like it? Trying to play on an ultra budget solution on an AMD Radeon R5 230 GPU with 1 GB of GDDR3 memory. The low-profile video card GIGABYTE GV-R523D3-1GL helps us in this. We will try to at least launch the following modern and popular games: Far Cry 4, Dying Light, Grand Theft Auto V, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Batman: Arkham Knight, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, Mad Max, SOMA, Call of Duty: Black Ops III, Fallout 4, Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, Firewatch, World of Warships, World of Tanks, War Thunder, Armored Warfare: Project Armata, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Ori and the Blind Forest with StarCraft II. The video shows at what settings these games will at least run. Menu: — Far Cry 4 — Dying Light — Grand Theft Auto V — The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt — Batman: Arkham Knight — Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain — Mad Max — SOMA — Call of Duty: Black Ops III — Fallout 4 — Assassin’s Creed Syndicate — Firewatch — World of Warships — World of Tanks — War Thunder — Armored Warfare: Project Armata — Counter-Strike: Global Offensive — Ori and the Blind Forest — StarCraft II Description AMD started Radeon R5 M230 sales on January 7, 2014. This is a GCN architecture notebook card based on 28 nm manufacturing process and primarily aimed at office use. It has 4 GB of DDR3 memory at 1000 GHz, and coupled with a 64-bit interface, this creates a bandwidth of 16 GB / s. In terms of compatibility, this is a PCIe 3.0 x8 card. It delivers poor benchmark and gaming performance of 0. 18% of the leader, which is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 SLI (mobile). Test results 3DMark06 5145 3DMark11 1175 Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 21.3 Rating 3DMark06 265. AMD Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics 5230 266. NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT 5174 267. AMD Radeon R5 M230 5145 268. AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) 5141 269. AMD Radeon HD 8350G 5139 Rating of all mobile video cards The AMD Radeon R5 M230 is an entry-level DirectX 11 compatible graphics card, codenamed Sun, based on the GCN architecture. The video adapter operates at a frequency of up to 1000 MHz and has its own DDR3 memory (1000 MHz) with a 64-bit interface. Compared to the Mars chip (eg HD 8570M), Sun offers fewer hardware components. The integrated GPU combines 320 shaders, 20 TMUs and 4 ROPs, making it one of the budget devices. Radeon R5 230M graphics performance can be comparable to HD 8500M series solutions such as HD 8570M. Modern demanding games will only run on low graphics settings and low detail. 320 shaders can be used with OpenCL 1.2 for general calculations (as five compute units). Compared to the legacy TeraScale 2 chips, the GCN delivers better performance within the given limits. R5 series video cards have many features and additional features. For example, ZeroCore technology allows you to save energy when the display is off, and Power Gating temporarily deactivates those areas of the chip that are not currently in use. Enduro performs automatic switching between integrated and discrete graphics (the next version of AMD Dynamic Switchable Graphics). Support for multiple monitors at once with Eyefinity, and overclocking/braking the graphics frequency with PowerTune within the specified TDP (the frequency can be lowered when running FurMark and OCCT, and increased in some games). Power consumption fluctuates with the slower HD 8500M or 8600M series graphics cards, so the R5 230M is suitable for 13-inch and larger notebooks. Manufacturer: AMD Series: Radeon R5 M200 Code: Sun Architecture: GCN Threads: 320 — unified Clock frequency: 1000 * MHz Memory frequency: 2000 MHz Memory bus width: 64 bit Memory type: DDR3 Maximum memory: 4096 MB Total memory: no DirectX: DirectX 11.2 Tier 1, Shader 5.0 Technology: 28 nm Optional: App Acceleration, PowerPlay, PowerTune, ZeroCore, Enduro, Eyefinity, Mantle Release date: 01/07/2014 * The specified clock speeds are subject to change by the manufacturer amd radeon r5 m230 game test Content Watch queue Queue YouTube Premium? Complain about video? Did you like it? Didn’t like it? Description View queue Queue Delete all Disable YouTube Premium Do you want to save this video? Complain Complain about video? Sign in to report inappropriate content. Like it? Didn’t like it? Trying to play on an ultra budget solution on an AMD Radeon R5 230 GPU with 1 GB of GDDR3 memory. The low-profile video card GIGABYTE GV-R523D3-1GL helps us in this. We will try to at least launch the following modern and popular games: Far Cry 4, Dying Light, Grand Theft Auto V, The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, Batman: Arkham Knight, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, Mad Max, SOMA, Call of Duty: Black Ops III, Fallout 4, Assassin’s Creed Syndicate, Firewatch, World of Warships, World of Tanks, War Thunder, Armored Warfare: Project Armata, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Ori and the Blind Forest with StarCraft II. The video shows at what settings these games will at least run. Menu: — Far Cry 4 — Dying Light — Grand Theft Auto V — The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt — Batman: Arkham Knight — Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain — Mad Max — SOMA — Call of Duty: Black Ops III — Fallout 4 — Assassin’s Creed Syndicate — Firewatch — World of Warships — World of Tanks — War Thunder — Armored Warfare: Project Armata — Counter-Strike: Global Offensive — Ori and the Blind Forest — StarCraft II Description AMD started Radeon R5 M230 sales on January 7, 2014. This is a GCN architecture notebook card based on 28 nm manufacturing process and primarily aimed at office use. It has 4 GB of DDR3 memory at 1000 GHz, and coupled with a 64-bit interface, this creates a bandwidth of 16 GB / s. In terms of compatibility, this is a PCIe 3.0 x8 card. It delivers poor benchmark and gaming performance of 0.18% of the leader, which is the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 SLI (mobile). Test results 3DMark06 5145 3DMark11 1175 Cinebench R11.5 OpenGL 21.3 Rating 3DMark06 265. AMD Radeon HD 8550G + HD 8670M Dual Graphics 5230 266. NVIDIA GeForce 9600M GT 5174 267. AMD Radeon R5 M230 5145 268. AMD Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) 5141 269. AMD Radeon HD 8350G 5139 Rating of all mobile video cards The AMD Radeon R5 M230 is an entry-level DirectX 11 compatible graphics card, codenamed Sun, based on the GCN architecture. The video adapter operates at a frequency of up to 1000 MHz and has its own DDR3 memory (1000 MHz) with a 64-bit interface. Compared to the Mars chip (eg HD 8570M), Sun offers fewer hardware components. The integrated GPU combines 320 shaders, 20 TMUs and 4 ROPs, making it one of the budget devices. Radeon R5 230M graphics performance can be comparable to HD 8500M series solutions such as HD 8570M. Modern demanding games will only run on low graphics settings and low detail. 320 shaders can be used with OpenCL 1.2 for general calculations (as five compute units). Compared to the legacy TeraScale 2 chips, the GCN delivers better performance within the given limits. R5 series video cards have many features and additional features. For example, ZeroCore technology allows you to save energy when the display is off, and Power Gating temporarily deactivates those areas of the chip that are not currently in use. Enduro performs automatic switching between integrated and discrete graphics (the next version of AMD Dynamic Switchable Graphics). Support for multiple monitors at once with Eyefinity, and overclocking/braking the graphics frequency with PowerTune within the specified TDP (the frequency can be lowered when running FurMark and OCCT, and increased in some games). Power consumption fluctuates with the slower HD 8500M or 8600M series graphics cards, so the R5 230M is suitable for 13-inch and larger notebooks. Manufacturer: AMD Series: Radeon R5 M200 Code: Sun Architecture: GCN Threads: 320 — unified Clock frequency: 1000 * MHz Memory frequency: 2000 MHz Memory bus width: 64 bit Memory type: DDR3 Maximum memory: 4096 MB Total memory: no DirectX: DirectX 11.