UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) vs Radeon R5 230

#ad 
Buy
Radeon HD 6450 Radeon HD 6450 GDDR5 Radeon HD 7450 OEM Radeon HD 7470 OEM Radeon HD 8450 OEM Radeon HD 8470 OEM Radeon HD 8490 OEM Radeon R5 230 Radeon R5 235 OEM Radeon R5 235X OEM Radeon R5 310 OEM Radeon R5 A220
VS
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 32 EU) UHD Graphics G1 UHD Graphics G1 (Ice Lake 32 EU) UHD Graphics G7 (Lakefield GT2 64 EU) UHD Graphics P630 UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 24EUs UHD Graphics Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 230 with UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), including specs and performance data.

R5 230
2014
4 GB DDR3, 19 Watt
0.49

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 143% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R5 230 R5 230
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12271027
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.059.44
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Gen. 11 (2021)
GPU code nameCaicosGen. 11
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date3 April 2014 (10 years ago)11 January 2021 (4 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 cores16024
Core clock speedno data350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data800 MHz
Number of transistors370 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt4.8 - 10 Watt
Texture fill rate5.000no data
Floating-point processing power0.2 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no data

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 x16no data
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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno data+

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 data
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
Quick Syncno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1112_1
Shader Model5.0no data
OpenGL4.4no data
OpenCL1.2no data

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 HD3−4
−167%
8
+167%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18
+0%
18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 12
+0%
12
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3
+0%
3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R5 230 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) is 167% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 44 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.49 1.19
Recency 3 April 2014 11 January 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 4 Watt

UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) has a 142.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 375% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 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 UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 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
Intel UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R5 230 Radeon R5 230
vs
GT 220 GeForce GT 220
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU)
vs
ATI Mobility HD 5650 Mobility Radeon HD 5650
R5 230 Radeon R5 230
vs
7600 GT GeForce 7600 GT
R7 340 OEM Radeon R7 340 OEM
vs
GT 1030 GK107 GT 1030 GK107
R9 285 Radeon R9 285
vs
Pro 555X Pro 555X
R7 250XE Radeon R7 250XE
vs
Wii U GPU U GPU
R9 295X2 Radeon R9 295X2
vs
HD 7970 HD 7970
R9 295X2 Radeon R9 295X2
vs
RTX 4070 Mobile RTX 4070 Mobile
R9 280 Radeon R9 280
vs
GT 620 GT 620
R7 250X Radeon R7 250X
vs
R7 Graphics R7 Graphics
R7 265 Radeon R7 265
vs
ATI 7200 64 MB Radeon 7200 64 MB
R7 265 Radeon R7 265
vs
Iris Plus Graphics G4 Plus Graphics G4
R5 220 OEM Radeon R5 220 OEM
vs
ATI FireGL V8600 FireGL V8600

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

2.8 248 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 122 votes

Rate UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU) 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 UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 16 EU), agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.