Radeon R5 230 vs FirePro M4000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M4000 with Radeon R5 230, including specs and performance data.
M4000 outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 619% 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 | 750 | 1276 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.88 | 2.15 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Chelsea | Caicos |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 27 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 3 April 2014 (11 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 512 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 675 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 0.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 128 KB |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | n/a | PCIe 1.0 x4 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Form factor | MXM-A | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | N/A |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 10.67 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| StereoOutput3D | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| PowerPlay | no data | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of 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.
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 | 27
+800%
| 3−4
−800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+657%
|
7−8
−657%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+667%
|
9−10
−667%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+657%
|
7−8
−657%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+775%
|
4−5
−775%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+657%
|
7−8
−657%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+700%
|
5−6
−700%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
This is how FirePro M4000 and R5 230 compete in popular games:
- FirePro M4000 is 800% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.81 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 27 June 2012 | 3 April 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 19 Watt |
FirePro M4000 has a 618.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
R5 230, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 73.7% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro M4000 is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon R5 230 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.
