FirePro M5950 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5830
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5830 with FirePro M5950, including specs and performance data.
M5950 outperforms Mobility HD 5830 by a whopping 154% 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 | 1083 | 795 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.95 | 6.90 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Broadway | Whistler |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 4 January 2011 (14 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 | 800 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,040 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.00 | 17.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8 TFLOPS | 0.696 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 48 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 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).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Form factor | no data | MXM-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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 57 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) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 9−10
−167%
| 24
+167%
|
| Full HD | 10−12
−160%
| 26
+160%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−45.5%
|
45−50
+45.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−103%
|
55−60
+103%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−45.5%
|
45−50
+45.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−87.5%
|
30−33
+87.5%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−100%
|
16−18
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−55.6%
|
14−16
+55.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−45.5%
|
45−50
+45.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−75%
|
7−8
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−200%
|
24−27
+200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−115%
|
27−30
+115%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−675%
|
30−35
+675%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−167%
|
8−9
+167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−167%
|
16−18
+167%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 5830 and FirePro M5950 compete in popular games:
- FirePro M5950 is 167% faster in 900p
- FirePro M5950 is 160% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro M5950 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro M5950 performs better in 47 tests (85%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (15%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.23 | 3.13 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 4 January 2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 24 Watt | 35 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 5830 has 45.8% lower power consumption.
FirePro M5950, on the other hand, has a 154.5% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 11 months.
The FirePro M5950 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5830 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 5830 is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M5950 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.
