ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5730 vs HD 7560D
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7560D with Mobility Radeon HD 5730, including specs and performance data.
ATI Mobility HD 5730 outperforms HD 7560D by a significant 22% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1070 | 997 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.09 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.26 | 3.86 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Devastator Lite | Madison |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 October 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $101 | no data |
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 | 256 | 400 |
| Core clock speed | 760 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 627 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 26 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.16 | 13.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3891 TFLOPS | 0.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 20 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | IGP | no data |
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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
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 benchmark performance
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 | 10−12
−40%
| 14
+40%
|
| Full HD | 18
+0%
| 18
+0%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.61 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+50%
|
30−33
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−6.3%
|
16−18
+6.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−6.1%
|
35−40
+6.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
−18.2%
|
12−14
+18.2%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 7560D and ATI Mobility HD 5730 compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 5730 is 40% faster in 900p
- A tie in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7560D is 50% faster.
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 5730 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 7560D is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- ATI Mobility HD 5730 is ahead in 28 tests (67%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (31%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.03 | 1.26 |
| Recency | 2 October 2012 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 26 Watt |
HD 7560D has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 5730, on the other hand, has a 22.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 150% lower power consumption.
The Mobility Radeon HD 5730 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7560D in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7560D is a desktop card while Mobility Radeon HD 5730 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
