Intel HD Graphics 510 vs AMD Radeon R5 230
Comparative analysis of Intel HD Graphics 510 and AMD Radeon R5 230 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the Intel HD Graphics 510
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 4 month(s) later
- 2.3x more texture fill rate: 11.4 GTexel / s vs 5 GTexel / s
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 27% lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 19 Watt
- 8x more maximum memory size: 32 GB vs 4 GB
- 2.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 621 vs 222
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 902 vs 439
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1333 vs 992
- 2.1x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 902 vs 439
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1333 vs 992
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 vs 3 April 2014 |
| Texture fill rate | 11.4 GTexel / s vs 5 GTexel / s |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 19 Watt |
| Maximum memory size | 32 GB vs 4 GB |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 621 vs 222 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 902 vs 439 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1333 vs 992 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 902 vs 439 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1333 vs 992 |
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 230
- 13.3x more pipelines: 160 vs 12
- Around 10% better floating-point performance: 200.0 gflops vs 182.4 gflops
- Around 57% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 255 vs 162
- Around 73% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 4127 vs 2381
- Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 2480 vs 1786
- Around 39% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 2480 vs 1786
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Pipelines | 160 vs 12 |
| Floating-point performance | 200.0 gflops vs 182.4 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 255 vs 162 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 4127 vs 2381 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 2480 vs 1786 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 2480 vs 1786 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: Intel HD Graphics 510
GPU 2: AMD Radeon R5 230
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | Intel HD Graphics 510 | AMD Radeon R5 230 |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 621 | 222 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 162 | 255 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2381 | 4127 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 14.381 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 215.873 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.081 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 11.675 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 15.094 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 902 | 439 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1333 | 992 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1786 | 2480 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 902 | 439 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1333 | 992 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1786 | 2480 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 0 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| Intel HD Graphics 510 | AMD Radeon R5 230 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 | TeraScale 2 |
| Code name | Skylake GT1 | Caicos |
| Launch date | 1 September 2015 | 3 April 2014 |
| Place in performance rating | 1509 | 1319 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
| Design | AMD Radeon R5 200 Series | |
| Price now | $50 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 6.10 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | |
| Floating-point performance | 182.4 gflops | 200.0 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 12 | 160 |
| Texture fill rate | 11.4 GTexel / s | 5 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Transistor count | 189 million | 370 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
| DisplayPort support | ||
| Dual-link DVI support | ||
| Eyefinity | ||
| HDMI | ||
| VGA | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Bus support | PCIe 1.0 x4 | |
| Length | 168 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | N / A | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_1) | 11 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 / 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory type | LPDDR3 / DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Shared memory | 1 | |
| Memory bandwidth | 10.67 GB / s | |
Technologies |
||
| Quick Sync | ||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| CrossFire | ||
| DDMA audio | ||
| PowerPlay | ||
