RTX A500 Mobile vs Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) and RTX A500 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX A500 Mobile outperforms R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) by a whopping 2282% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1150 | 321 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | Beema/Mullins | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (10 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 128 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | 1537 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 60 Watt (20 - 60 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 98.37 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) and RTX A500 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 96 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 data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | no data | 1.3 |
| CUDA | no data | 8.6 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
RTX A500 Mobile outperforms Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) by 2282% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
RTX A500 Mobile outperforms Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) by 2607% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
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 | 2−3
−2900%
| 60
+2900%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−3000%
| 31
+3000%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−700%
|
24−27
+700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−700%
|
24−27
+700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4100%
|
40−45
+4100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−417%
|
60−65
+417%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−1000%
|
77
+1000%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−700%
|
24−27
+700%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4100%
|
40−45
+4100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
−1400%
|
30−33
+1400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−417%
|
60−65
+417%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−786%
|
62
+786%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−1800%
|
57
+1800%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−700%
|
24−27
+700%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−417%
|
60−65
+417%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−671%
|
54
+671%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−933%
|
31
+933%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−375%
|
18−20
+375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−700%
|
8−9
+700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| Hitman 3 | 6−7
−200%
|
18−20
+200%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
−933%
|
30−35
+933%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−733%
|
24−27
+733%
|
4K
High Preset
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
−275%
|
14−16
+275%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2333%
|
70−75
+2333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4200%
|
40−45
+4200%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2333%
|
70−75
+2333%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4200%
|
40−45
+4200%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2333%
|
70−75
+2333%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4200%
|
40−45
+4200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2800%
|
27−30
+2800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 10−11 |
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 6−7 |
This is how R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) and RTX A500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A500 Mobile is 2900% faster in 1080p
- RTX A500 Mobile is 3000% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX A500 Mobile is 4100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX A500 Mobile surpassed R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.65 | 15.48 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 30 March 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
The RTX A500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R2 (Mullins/Beema/Carrizo-L) in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
