Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) vs HD 8410G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8410G and Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 8410G outperforms R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1083 | 1092 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.23 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | GCN 1.1 (2014) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper | Beema |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 29 April 2014 (10 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 | 192 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 8.640 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.2765 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 12 | no data |
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).
| Interface | 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | no data |
| 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 data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| 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:
| Full HD | 6−7
+0%
| 6
+0%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+8.3%
|
12−14
−8.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how HD 8410G and R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) compete in popular games:
- A tie in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8410G is 20% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8410G is ahead in 6 tests (17%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (83%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.13 | 1.08 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 29 April 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
HD 8410G has a 4.6% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L), on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 8410G and Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L).
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
