Radeon HD 6450 vs ATI Mobility HD 5730
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5730 with Radeon HD 6450, including specs and performance data.
ATI Mobility HD 5730 outperforms HD 6450 by a whopping 188% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 994 | 1242 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.88 | 1.95 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Madison | Caicos |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 7 April 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $55 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 400 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.00 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.52 TFLOPS | 0.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 8 |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 8.5-12.8 GB/x (DDR3) or 25.6-28.8 GB/s (GDDR5) |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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 | 14
+250%
| 4−5
−250%
|
| Full HD | 18
+200%
| 6−7
−200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 9.17 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+210%
|
10−11
−210%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+200%
|
5−6
−200%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5730 and HD 6450 compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5730 is 250% faster in 900p
- ATI Mobility HD 5730 is 200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.47 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 7 April 2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 30 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 5730 has a 188.2% higher aggregate performance score, and 15.4% lower power consumption.
HD 6450, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
The Mobility Radeon HD 5730 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6450 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 5730 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 6450 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.
