Radeon HD 6450 vs R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and Radeon HD 6450, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
2.82
+500%

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms HD 6450 by a whopping 500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8341303
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data2.00
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreCaicos
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Designno datareference
Release date14 January 2014 (11 years ago)7 April 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$55

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores512160
Core clock speed720 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data750 MHz
Number of transistorsno data370 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data30 Watt
Texture fill rateno data5.000
Floating-point processing powerno data0.2 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L1 Cacheno data16 KB
L2 Cacheno data128 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).

Bus supportno dataPCIe 2.0 x8
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
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 dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data8.5-12.8 GB/x (DDR3) or 25.6-28.8 GB/s (GDDR5)
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 data1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
Eyefinity-+
Number of Eyefinity displaysno data4
HDMI-+
DisplayPort support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)DirectX® 11
Shader Modelno data5.0
OpenGLno data4.4
OpenCLno data1.2

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 2.82
+500%
HD 6450 0.47

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.

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) 1616
+375%
HD 6450 340

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 HD18
+500%
3−4
−500%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data18.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Fortnite 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Valorant 45−50
+557%
7−8
−557%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 50−55
+500%
9−10
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 29
+625%
4−5
−625%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Fortnite 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Forza Horizon 5 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+800%
1−2
−800%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Valorant 45−50
+557%
7−8
−557%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 26
+550%
4−5
−550%
Far Cry 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Hogwarts Legacy 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Valorant 45−50
+557%
7−8
−557%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24
+600%
3−4
−600%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Valorant 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Valorant 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and HD 6450 compete in popular games:

  • R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 500% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.82 0.47
Recency 14 January 2014 7 April 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6450 in performance tests.

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 R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
AMD Radeon HD 6450
Radeon HD 6450

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.


3.4 16 votes

Rate Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 582 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6450 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) or Radeon HD 6450, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.