GeForce 9300M G vs Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) and GeForce 9300M G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R5 (Stoney Ridge)
2016
12 Watt
1.33
+565%

R5 (Stoney Ridge) outperforms 9300M G by a whopping 565% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10611454
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.281.18
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameStoney RidgeG86
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 June 2016 (9 years ago)1 February 2008 (18 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 cores19216
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-45 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rateno data3.200
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0256 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L2 Cacheno data16 KB

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16

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 dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data600 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data9.6 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 dataNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-1.1

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 HD8
+700%
1−2
−700%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 1 0−1
Fortnite 7
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 5
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 30−35
+36%
24−27
−36%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−33
+150%
12−14
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Fortnite 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Forza Horizon 5 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
Metro Exodus 1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Valorant 30−35
+36%
24−27
−36%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 16−18
+88.9%
9−10
−88.9%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Valorant 30−35
+36%
24−27
−36%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 4−5 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Valorant 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R5 (Stoney Ridge) and 9300M G compete in popular games:

  • R5 (Stoney Ridge) is 700% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 (Stoney Ridge) is 600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 (Stoney Ridge) performs better in 24 tests (92%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (8%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.33 0.20
Recency 1 June 2016 1 February 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 13 Watt

R5 (Stoney Ridge) has a 565% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 8% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9300M G in performance tests.

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.


3 106 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 22 votes

Rate GeForce 9300M G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) or GeForce 9300M G, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.