ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730 vs GeForce 845M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 845M and Mobility Radeon HD 5730, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
845M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 5730 by a whopping 169% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 705 | 994 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.24 | 3.89 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | Madison |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 August 2015 (9 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 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 | 384 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 1071 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1176 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,870 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.63 | 13.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.9032 TFLOPS | 0.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 20 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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:
| 900p | 35−40
+150%
| 14
−150%
|
| Full HD | 22
+22.2%
| 18
−22.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+116%
|
30−35
−116%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+48.6%
|
35−40
−48.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+211%
|
9−10
−211%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+457%
|
7−8
−457%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how GeForce 845M and ATI Mobility HD 5730 compete in popular games:
- GeForce 845M is 150% faster in 900p
- GeForce 845M is 22% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 845M is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GeForce 845M surpassed ATI Mobility HD 5730 in all 49 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.87 | 1.44 |
| Recency | 26 August 2015 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 26 Watt |
GeForce 845M has a 168.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 5730, on the other hand, has 73.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 845M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5730 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
