Radeon RX 5700 XT vs R5 230

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 230 and Radeon RX 5700 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R5 230
2014
4 GB DDR3, 19 Watt
0.57

RX 5700 XT outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 7367% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking122094
Place by popularitynot in top-10041
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data46.08
Power efficiency2.0713.05
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameCaicosNavi 10
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designreferenceno data
Release date3 April 2014 (10 years ago)7 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores1602560
Core clock speedno data1605 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1905 MHz
Number of transistors370 million10,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate5.000304.8
Floating-point processing power0.2 TFLOPS9.754 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8160

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 supportPCIe 1.0 x4no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mm272 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsN/A1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 GB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s448.0 GB/s

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 VGA1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
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
VR Readyno data+
Multi Monitorno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan-+

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 0.57
RX 5700 XT 42.56
+7367%

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
RX 5700 XT 16456
+7346%

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 HD1−2
−12800%
129
+12800%
1440p1−2
−7700%
78
+7700%
4K0−149

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.09
1440pno data5.12
4Kno data8.14

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 175
+0%
175
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 93
+0%
93
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+0%
78
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 133
+0%
133
+0%
Battlefield 5 119
+0%
119
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 76
+0%
76
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 78
+0%
78
+0%
Far Cry 5 138
+0%
138
+0%
Fortnite 223
+0%
223
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 155
+0%
155
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 130
+0%
130
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 177
+0%
177
+0%
Valorant 313
+0%
313
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 78
+0%
78
+0%
Battlefield 5 110
+0%
110
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 64
+0%
64
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 75
+0%
75
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 130
+0%
130
+0%
Fortnite 179
+0%
179
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 154
+0%
154
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 110
+0%
110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 145
+0%
145
+0%
Metro Exodus 97
+0%
97
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 166
+0%
166
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 154
+0%
154
+0%
Valorant 294
+0%
294
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 105
+0%
105
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 57
+0%
57
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 67
+0%
67
+0%
Dota 2 103
+0%
103
+0%
Far Cry 5 111
+0%
111
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 148
+0%
148
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 104
+0%
104
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 139
+0%
139
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 93
+0%
93
+0%
Valorant 159
+0%
159
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 143
+0%
143
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 79
+0%
79
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 286
+0%
286
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 89
+0%
89
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40
+0%
40
+0%
Far Cry 5 97
+0%
97
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 119
+0%
119
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 72
+0%
72
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 93
+0%
93
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 79
+0%
79
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54
+0%
54
+0%
Valorant 242
+0%
242
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60
+0%
60
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8
+0%
8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Dota 2 93
+0%
93
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 79
+0%
79
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 37
+0%
37
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53
+0%
53
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 45
+0%
45
+0%

This is how R5 230 and RX 5700 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 5700 XT is 12800% faster in 1080p
  • RX 5700 XT is 7700% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 42.56
Recency 3 April 2014 7 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 225 Watt

R5 230 has 1084.2% lower power consumption.

RX 5700 XT, on the other hand, has a 7366.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 5700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.

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
AMD Radeon RX 5700 XT
Radeon RX 5700 XT

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.


2.8 245 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 8385 votes

Rate Radeon RX 5700 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 230 or Radeon RX 5700 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.