Radeon R5 230 vs HD 6950M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6950M with Radeon R5 230, including specs and performance data.
HD 6950M outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 590% 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 | 792 | 1304 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.10 | 1.95 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb | Caicos |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 4 January 2011 (15 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 | 960 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 580 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 27.84 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.114 TFLOPS | 0.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 1.0 x4 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 115.2 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 | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 60−65
+675%
|
8−9
−675%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30
+625%
|
4−5
−625%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.31 | 0.48 |
| Recency | 4 January 2011 | 3 April 2014 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 19 Watt |
HD 6950M has a 590% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 230, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and 163% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6950M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6950M 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.
