Radeon R5 230 vs R5 M430
Aggregated performance score
R5 M430 outperforms R5 230 by a whopping 193% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 892 | 1166 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.04 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Mars | Caicos |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | no data | reference |
| Release date | 1 May 2016 (8 years ago) | 3 April 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Current price | $749 | $76 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
R5 M430 and R5 230 have a nearly equal value for money.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 160 |
| Core clock speed | 955 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1030 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 370 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point performance | 659.2 gflops | 200.0 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R5 M430 and Radeon R5 230 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 1.0 x4 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | N/A |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1746 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 10.67 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| Eyefinity | no data | 1 |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| DisplayPort support | no data | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | no data | - |
| CrossFire | no data | 1 |
| Enduro | no data | - |
| HD3D | no data | - |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| ZeroCore | no data | - |
| PowerPlay | no data | + |
| DDMA audio | no data | - |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | DirectX® 11 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | no data |
| Mantle | no data | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
R5 M430 outperforms R5 230 by 193% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
R5 M430 outperforms R5 230 by 193% in Passmark.
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 | 15
+200%
| 5−6
−200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
This is how R5 M430 and R5 230 compete in popular games:
- R5 M430 is 200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.67 | 0.57 |
| Recency | 1 May 2016 | 3 April 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
The Radeon R5 M430 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 230 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M430 is a notebook card while Radeon R5 230 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
