Riva TNT2 vs Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) with Riva TNT2, including specs and performance data.

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
2014
0.99
+9800%

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) outperforms Riva TNT2 by a whopping 9800% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11611592
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 (2014)Fahrenheit (1998−2000)
GPU code nameBeemaNV5
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date29 April 2014 (11 years ago)12 October 1999 (26 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 cores128no data
Core clock speedno data125 MHz
Boost clock speed850 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data15 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm250 nm
Texture fill rateno data0.25
ROPsno data2
TMUsno data2

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).

Interfaceno dataAGP 4x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataSDR
Maximum RAM amountno data16 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data150 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data2.4 GB/s
Shared memory+no 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 Connectorsno data1x VGA

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)6.0
OpenGLno data1.2
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD6-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 0−1
Valorant 30−35 0−1

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Valorant 30−35 0−1

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 14−16 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 0−1
Valorant 30−35 0−1

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 1−2 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1

1440p
Ultra

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

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Valorant 5−6 0−1

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.99 0.01
Recency 29 April 2014 12 October 1999
Chip lithography 28 nm 250 nm

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) has a 9800% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 793% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) is our recommended choice as it beats the Riva TNT2 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) is a notebook graphics card while Riva TNT2 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.

Community ratings

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


4.4 21 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 33 votes

Rate Riva TNT2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) or Riva TNT2, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.