FirePro M4150 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5430
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5430 with FirePro M4150, including specs and performance data.
M4150 outperforms Mobility HD 5430 by a whopping 629% 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 | 1358 | 880 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.74 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) |
| GPU code name | Park | Opal |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 16 October 2013 (12 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 | 80 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 715 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 950 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 7 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 17.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 0.5491 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 8 KB | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 256 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 64 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−592%
|
180−190
+592%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−600%
|
70−75
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−592%
|
180−190
+592%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−600%
|
70−75
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−614%
|
50−55
+614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−600%
|
35−40
+600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−592%
|
180−190
+592%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−600%
|
21−24
+600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−575%
|
27−30
+575%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−614%
|
100−105
+614%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.34 | 2.48 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 16 October 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
FirePro M4150 has a 629% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro M4150 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 FirePro M4150 is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
