Radeon R5 230 vs 520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon 520 with Radeon R5 230, including specs and performance data.
520 outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 292% 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 | 955 | 1304 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.90 | 1.95 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Banks | Caicos |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (9 years ago) | 3 April 2014 (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 | 320 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 1030 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.60 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6592 TFLOPS | 0.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 128 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 1.0 x4 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | N/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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1125 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 36 GB/s | 10.67 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
| PowerPlay | no data | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 | 15
+400%
| 3−4
−400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+322%
|
9−10
−322%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+333%
|
9−10
−333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 19
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+322%
|
9−10
−322%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+322%
|
9−10
−322%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
This is how Radeon 520 and R5 230 compete in popular games:
- Radeon 520 is 400% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.88 | 0.48 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 3 April 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 19 Watt |
Radeon 520 has a 292% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
R5 230, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 163% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 520 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon 520 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R5 230 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.
