GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5430 with GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4080 SUPER outperforms Mobility HD 5430 by a whopping 24062% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1376 | 6 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 47.15 |
| Power efficiency | 3.76 | 19.86 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Park | AD103 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 80 | 10240 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 45,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 816.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 52.22 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 112 |
| TMUs | 8 | 320 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 8 KB | 10 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 64 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 310 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR3 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1438 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 736.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 1−2
−25600%
| 257
+25600%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 178 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 116 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.89 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.61 |
| 4K | no data | 8.61 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24800%
|
249
+24800%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−7900%
|
240
+7900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−24500%
|
246
+24500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−11367%
|
344
+11367%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−7833%
|
238
+7833%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−2096%
|
500−550
+2096%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1886%
|
270−280
+1886%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−23700%
|
238
+23700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−23900%
|
2400−2450
+23900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−11300%
|
342
+11300%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−7433%
|
226
+7433%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−9017%
|
547
+9017%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−2096%
|
500−550
+2096%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−19800%
|
199
+19800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−23900%
|
2400−2450
+23900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−10633%
|
322
+10633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−4283%
|
263
+4283%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−2096%
|
500−550
+2096%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
−7367%
|
224
+7367%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−13600%
|
274
+13600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−51500%
|
500−550
+51500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−30500%
|
306
+30500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−22000%
|
221
+22000%
|
1440p
Epic
| Palworld | 0−1 | 181 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1147%
|
187
+1147%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−6280%
|
300−350
+6280%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−9500%
|
95−100
+9500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 351
+0%
|
351
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 347
+0%
|
347
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344
+0%
|
344
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 240
+0%
|
240
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 339
+0%
|
339
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 227
+0%
|
227
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 179
+0%
|
179
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 227
+0%
|
227
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 212
+0%
|
212
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 162
+0%
|
162
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 128
+0%
|
128
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 208
+0%
|
208
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Palworld | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 204
+0%
|
204
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 145
+0%
|
145
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 305
+0%
|
305
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 104
+0%
|
104
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5430 and RTX 4080 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 25600% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 4080 SUPER is 51500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 4080 SUPER performs better in 29 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 32 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.34 | 82.15 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 8 January 2024 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | 320 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 5430 has 4471% lower power consumption.
RTX 4080 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 24062% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5430 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 5430 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
