Radeon R5 M230 vs GeForce GTX 260M
Aggregated performance score
Radeon R5 M230 outperforms GeForce GTX 260M by 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1070 | 1049 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.07 | no data |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN (2011−2017) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GT | Jet / Sun |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years old) | 7 January 2014 (10 years old) |
| Current price | $109 | no data |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 112 | 320 |
| CUDA cores | 112 | no data |
| Compute units | no data | 5 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 855 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 855 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | unknown |
| Texture fill rate | 31 billion/sec | 17.10 |
| Floating-point performance | 308 gflops | 547.2 gflops |
| Gigaflops | 462 | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 260M and Radeon R5 M230 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| SLI options | 2-way | no data |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | no data |
Memory
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 950 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 61 GB/s | 16 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | DisplayPortSingle Link DVIDual Link DVIVGALVDSHDMI | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | + |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| HD3D | no data | + |
| PowerTune | no data | + |
| DualGraphics | no data | 1 |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| Mantle | no data | + |
| CUDA | + | no data |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Radeon R5 M230 outperforms GeForce GTX 260M by 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Radeon R5 M230 outperforms GeForce GTX 260M by 9% in Passmark.
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 | 29
+190%
| 10
−190%
|
Performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GTX 260M and R5 M230 compete in popular games:
1080p resolution:
- GTX 260M is 190% faster than R5 M230
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M230 is 33.3% faster than the GTX 260M.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M230 is ahead in 5 tests (19%)
- there's a draw in 22 tests (81%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 0.98 | 1.07 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 7 January 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 28 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GTX 260M and Radeon R5 M230.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
