GeForce RTX 3080 vs Radeon R5 M230
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M230 with GeForce RTX 3080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3080 outperforms R5 M230 by a whopping 5945% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1096 | 29 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 46.42 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.10 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | Jet | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 September 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $699 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 cores | 320 | 8704 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 1440 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 465.1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | 29.77 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 20 | 272 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 272 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 68 |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 285 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 12-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 type | DDR3 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 10 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1188 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 760.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | 8.5 |
| 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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 HD | 9
−1767%
| 168
+1767%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−6150%
| 125
+6150%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−8600%
| 87
+8600%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 4.16 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.59 |
| 4K | no data | 8.03 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2450%
|
150−160
+2450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3650%
|
150−160
+3650%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2450%
|
150−160
+2450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3225%
|
133
+3225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−6283%
|
383
+6283%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−2083%
|
131
+2083%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2450%
|
150−160
+2450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−3025%
|
125
+3025%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1130%
|
123
+1130%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
−6300%
|
250−260
+6300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−5333%
|
326
+5333%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1554%
|
210−220
+1554%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
−1883%
|
119
+1883%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−2800%
|
170−180
+2800%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
−1016%
|
270−280
+1016%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 110−120 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
−2450%
|
150−160
+2450%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−2825%
|
117
+2825%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
−1160%
|
120−130
+1160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−4683%
|
287
+4683%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1554%
|
210−220
+1554%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−2817%
|
170−180
+2817%
|
| World of Tanks | 5−6
−8900%
|
450−500
+8900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−2533%
|
79
+2533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−3100%
|
160−170
+3100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 126 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−3425%
|
140−150
+3425%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−4033%
|
248
+4033%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−794%
|
143
+794%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−853%
|
143
+853%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−6867%
|
200−210
+6867%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 56 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−853%
|
143
+853%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−8300%
|
80−85
+8300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1950%
|
41
+1950%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−706%
|
129
+706%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Valorant | 1−2
−15200%
|
153
+15200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Forza Horizon 5 | 152
+0%
|
152
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Valorant | 277
+0%
|
277
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 176
+0%
|
176
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 147
+0%
|
147
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 119
+0%
|
119
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200
+0%
|
200
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
| Valorant | 268
+0%
|
268
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 112
+0%
|
112
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 219
+0%
|
219
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 107
+0%
|
107
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 78
+0%
|
78
+0%
|
This is how R5 M230 and RTX 3080 compete in popular games:
- RTX 3080 is 1767% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3080 is 6150% faster in 1440p
- RTX 3080 is 8600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 3080 is 15200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3080 is ahead in 34 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.04 | 62.87 |
| Recency | 7 January 2014 | 1 September 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 10 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
RTX 3080 has a 5945.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 150% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 3080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M230 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M230 is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 3080 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.
