Radeon R5 430 OEM vs ATI IGP 320M

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated801
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.70
ArchitectureRage 7 (2001−2006)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameRS100Oland
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date5 October 2002 (22 years ago)30 June 2016 (8 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 cores2384
Core clock speed160 MHz730 MHz
Boost clock speed160 MHz780 MHz
Number of transistors30 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology180 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data50 Watt
Texture fill rate0.1618.72
Floating-point processing powerno data0.599 TFLOPS
ROPs18
TMUs124

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).

InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 3.0 x8
WidthIGP1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared2 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1150 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data36.8 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX7.012 (11_1)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGL1.44.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

ATI IGP 320M 3
R5 430 OEM 1031
+34267%

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 October 2002 30 June 2016
Chip lithography 180 nm 28 nm

R5 430 OEM has an age advantage of 13 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon IGP 320M and Radeon R5 430 OEM. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI Radeon IGP 320M
Radeon IGP 320M
AMD Radeon R5 430 OEM
Radeon R5 430 OEM

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 17 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 358 votes

Rate Radeon R5 430 OEM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.