UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs vs Radeon R5 230

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
HD 6450 HD 6450 GDDR5 HD 7450 OEM HD 7470 OEM HD 8450 OEM HD 8470 OEM HD 8490 OEM R5 230 R5 230 OEM R5 235 OEM R5 310 OEM R5 A220
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Iris Xe Graphics G7 Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 96EUs Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G1 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G4 Tiger Lake-U Xe Graphics G7 Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) Xe 32EUs (Tiger Lake-H) Xe 750 32EUs Xe G1 Xe G4 48EUs

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 230 with UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, including specs and performance data.

R5 230
2014
4 GB DDR3, 19 Watt
0.53

Graphics G4 48EUs outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 704% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R5 230 R5 230
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1276714
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.1411.70
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Gen. 11 Ice Lake (2019−2022)
GPU code nameCaicosTiger Lake Xe
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date3 April 2014 (11 years ago)15 August 2020 (5 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 cores16048
Core clock speedno data350 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1450 MHz
Number of transistors370 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt28 Watt
Texture fill rate5.000no data
Floating-point processing power0.2 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no data
L1 Cache16 KBno data
L2 Cache128 KBno 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

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 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 support

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 HD1−2
−1500%
16
+1500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 46
+0%
46
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 29
+0%
29
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 36
+0%
36
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 16
+0%
16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 25
+0%
25
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 10
+0%
10
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 15
+0%
15
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8
+0%
8
+0%
Valorant 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Valorant 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how R5 230 and UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs compete in popular games:

  • UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is 1500% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 60 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.53 4.26
Recency 3 April 2014 15 August 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 28 Watt

R5 230 has 47.4% lower power consumption.

UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs, on the other hand, has a 703.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.

The UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 230 is a desktop graphics card while UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 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 Xe G4 48EUs
UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
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 Xe G4 48EUs UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs
vs
RX Vega 5 Radeon RX Vega 5
R5 230 Radeon R5 230
vs
9500 GS GeForce 9500 GS
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
HC
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
ATI HD 2400 PRO PCI 2400 PRO PCI
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
ATI X1300 PRO X1300 PRO
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
ATI 7200 7200
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
FX 5200 LE 5200 LE
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
CMP 90HX 90HX
R5 230 AMD R5 230
vs
RTX 4070 Max-Q 4070 Max-Q
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
GeForce 940M 940M
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
Radeon 520 520
R9 280 AMD R9 280
vs
GTX 650 Ti Boost 650 Ti Boost

Community ratings

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

2.8 260 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 541 votes

Rate UHD Graphics Xe G4 48EUs 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 Xe G4 48EUs, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.