GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile vs Radeon R5 230

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 230 with GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R5 230
2014
4 GB DDR3, 19 Watt
0.55

RTX 3050 Mobile outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 4049% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1230251
Place by popularitynot in top-10044
Power efficiency2.0521.52
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameCaicosGA107
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date3 April 2014 (10 years ago)11 May 2021 (3 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 cores1602048
Core clock speedno data712 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1057 MHz
Number of transistors370 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate5.00067.65
Floating-point processing power0.2 TFLOPS4.329 TFLOPS
ROPs440
TMUs864
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 1.0 x4no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano 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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s192.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
​PowerPlay+no data
DDMA audio-no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.6
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan-1.2
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

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.

R5 230 0.55
RTX 3050 Mobile 22.82
+4049%

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.

R5 230 221
RTX 3050 Mobile 9122
+4028%

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 HD2−3
−4550%
93
+4550%
1440p1−2
−5000%
51
+5000%
4K0−132

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 106
+0%
106
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 87
+0%
87
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 83
+0%
83
+0%
Far Cry 5 118
+0%
118
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 108
+0%
108
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 67
+0%
67
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 61
+0%
61
+0%
Dota 2 169
+0%
169
+0%
Far Cry 5 107
+0%
107
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 94
+0%
94
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 128
+0%
128
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 53
+0%
53
+0%
Metro Exodus 62
+0%
62
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 168
+0%
168
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 61
+0%
61
+0%
Dota 2 155
+0%
155
+0%
Far Cry 5 99
+0%
99
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 42
+0%
42
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 65
+0%
65
+0%
Valorant 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 57
+0%
57
+0%
Metro Exodus 36
+0%
36
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Far Cry 5 68
+0%
68
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 29
+0%
29
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 57
+0%
57
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 23
+0%
23
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+0%
44
+0%
Valorant 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Dota 2 93
+0%
93
+0%
Far Cry 5 35
+0%
35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 15
+0%
15
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how R5 230 and RTX 3050 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 Mobile is 4550% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3050 Mobile is 5000% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 22.82
Recency 3 April 2014 11 May 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 75 Watt

R5 230 has 294.7% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4049.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 230 is a desktop card while GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile is a notebook one.

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.


AMD Radeon R5 230
Radeon R5 230
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile
GeForce RTX 3050

Other comparisons

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.


2.8 250 votes

Rate Radeon R5 230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 4936 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 230 or GeForce RTX 3050 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.