Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) vs R4 (Kaveri)
Aggregated performance score
R4 (Kaveri) outperforms R3 (Mullins/Beema) by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1093 | 1096 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | GCN 1.1 (2014) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri | Beema/Mullins |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2014 (9 years ago) | 29 April 2014 (9 years ago) |
Technical specs
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 | 192 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 533 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 686 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Memory
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 bus width | 64/128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Shared memory | + | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
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.
R4 (Kaveri) outperforms R3 (Mullins/Beema) by 1% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
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3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution.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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
R4 (Kaveri) outperforms R3 (Mullins/Beema) by 8% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
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%
R3 (Mullins/Beema) outperforms R4 (Kaveri) by 1% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
R4 (Kaveri) outperforms R3 (Mullins/Beema) by 3% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
R4 (Kaveri) outperforms R3 (Mullins/Beema) by 11% in 3DMark Cloud Gate 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 | 8
−87.5%
| 15
+87.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how R4 (Kaveri) and R3 (Mullins/Beema) compete in popular games:
- R3 (Mullins/Beema) is 87.5% faster than R4 (Kaveri) in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R4 (Kaveri) is 25% faster than the R3 (Mullins/Beema).
All in all, in popular games:
- R4 (Kaveri) is ahead in 1 test (4%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (96%)
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 0.85 | 0.84 |
| Recency | 4 June 2014 | 29 April 2014 |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R4 (Kaveri) and Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema).
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
