Radeon R5 230 vs FirePro W4190M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W4190M with Radeon R5 230, including specs and performance data.

W4190M
2015
2 GB GDDR5
2.98
+423%

W4190M outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 423% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking7761214
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN (2011−2017)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameMars XTX?Caicos
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date12 November 2015 (8 years ago)3 April 2014 (10 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 cores384160
Core clock speed825 MHzno data
Boost clock speed900 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million370 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data19 Watt
Texture fill rate21.605.000
Floating-point processing power0.6912 gflops0.2 gflops
ROPs84
TMUs248

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportno dataPCIe 1.0 x4
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneN/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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed4000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s10.67 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity-+
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire-+
​PowerPlayno data+
DDMA audiono data-

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)DirectX® 11
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.64.4
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.131-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

W4190M 2.98
+423%
R5 230 0.57

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.

W4190M 1150
+420%
R5 230 221

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 HD12
+500%
2−3
−500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+450%
4−5
−450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how W4190M and R5 230 compete in popular games:

  • W4190M is 500% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.98 0.57
Recency 12 November 2015 3 April 2014
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

W4190M has a 422.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

R5 230, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

The FirePro W4190M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W4190M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon R5 230 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro W4190M
FirePro W4190M
AMD Radeon R5 230
Radeon R5 230

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 27 votes

Rate FirePro W4190M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 222 votes

Rate Radeon R5 230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.