Radeon HD 6450 vs R4 (Stoney Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) with Radeon HD 6450, including specs and performance data.
R4 (Stoney Ridge) outperforms HD 6450 by a whopping 128% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1119 | 1282 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.43 | 1.99 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Stoney Ridge | Caicos |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (9 years ago) | 7 April 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $55 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 160 |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 5.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 2.0 x8 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 8.5-12.8 GB/x (DDR3) or 25.6-28.8 GB/s (GDDR5) |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | - | + |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | no data | 4 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| DisplayPort support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
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 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.
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 | 9
+200%
| 3−4
−200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 18.33 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
| God of War | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+158%
|
12−14
−158%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how R4 (Stoney Ridge) and HD 6450 compete in popular games:
- R4 (Stoney Ridge) is 200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.07 | 0.47 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 7 April 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 30 Watt |
R4 (Stoney Ridge) has a 127.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6450 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R4 (Stoney Ridge) is a notebook graphics card while Radeon HD 6450 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
