AMD Radeon R5 M230 vs AMD Radeon R7 Graphics Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics records an average benchmark score of 4998, while the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577. The R7 Graphics sits about 9.2% higher in aggregate performance, though neither part ranks high in the overall GPU landscape.

Q: How do these two compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The R7 Graphics is within 0.7% of the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 (4979, +0.4%), AMD Radeon R5 M430 (5018, -0.4%), NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB (4970, +0.6%), and AMD FirePro W4170M (5034, -0.7%). The R5 M230 is similarly tight against the AMD Radeon RX 560 (4569, +0.2%), Intel HD Graphics P530 (4560, +0.4%), NVIDIA Quadro M3000M (4621, -0.9%), and NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M (4628, -1.1%).

Q: Which GPU wins in the OpenCL benchmark directly comparing the two?

A: The AMD Radeon R5 M230 wins the Geekbench OpenCL head-to-head, scoring 4577 versus 4015 for the R7 Graphics, a delta of -12.3% from the R7's perspective. This is the only direct benchmark recorded between them.

Q: Do both GPUs support the same graphics APIs?

A: Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. However, the R7 Graphics lists DirectX 12 (12_0), while the R5 M230 lists DirectX 12 (11_1), indicating a feature-level difference in DirectX support.

Q: What are the production status and release timing for these parts?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The AMD Radeon R5 M230 was released on January 6, 2014, and the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics followed on February 16, 2014. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

Q: How do the memory configurations differ?

A: The R7 Graphics uses system shared memory with bandwidth described as system dependent, while the R5 M230 has dedicated 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, delivering 16.00 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon R7 Graphics and AMD Radeon R5 M230 diverge substantially in their underlying silicon, despite both being 28 nm parts from AMD. The R7 Graphics uses the Spectre Lite chip, built on GCN 2.0 architecture under the Kaveri generation, and is fabricated by GlobalFoundries. It packs 2,410 million transistors on a 245 mm² die, yielding a transistor density of 9.8M per mm². In contrast, the R5 M230 uses the Jet chip, built on the older GCN 1.0 architecture from the Gem System (R5 M200) generation, fabricated by TSMC. It contains 690 million transistors on a much smaller 56 mm² die, giving a higher transistor density of 12.3M per mm².

The compute configuration also differs. The R7 Graphics fields 384 shading units, 24 texture mapping units, and 8 ROPs. The R5 M230 has 320 shading units, 20 TMUs, and 8 ROPs. These counts directly drive the theoretical throughput figures: the R7 Graphics reaches 553.0 GFLOPS FP32, 17.28 GTexel/s texture rate, and 5.760 GPixel/s pixel rate. The R5 M230 delivers 390.4 GFLOPS FP32, 12.20 GTexel/s, and 4.880 GPixel/s. The R7 Graphics holds a clear advantage in raw compute and texture throughput, while the ROP count is identical.

Memory architecture separates the two further. The R7 Graphics is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) that borrows system memory, with its memory type, bus width, and bandwidth all listed as system shared or system dependent. The R5 M230, though also labeled IGP in slot width, has dedicated memory: 2 GB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus with 16.00 GB/s bandwidth and a memory clock of 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective). The R5 M230 connects via PCIe 3.0 x8, while the R7 Graphics uses an IGP bus interface. The R7 Graphics has a 25 W TDP; the R5 M230 has no recorded TDP in the database.

The R7 Graphics supports a newer DirectX feature level (12_0) versus the R5 M230's 12 (11_1), though both list identical OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.2.170. Display outputs are motherboard dependent for the R7 Graphics and portable device dependent for the R5 M230. In terms of lineage, the R7 Graphics succeeds TeraScale 3 IGP and is succeeded by GCN 3.0 IGP, while the R5 M230 follows the Solar System generation and leads to Polaris Mobile.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records a single head-to-head test between these two GPUs: Geekbench OpenCL. In that test, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 scores 4577, outperforming the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics at 4015. The delta is -12.3% from the R7's side, meaning the R5 M230 is about 14% faster in this specific workload. This is a notable result, as the R7 Graphics has more shading units, higher FP32 throughput, and a newer architecture, yet the dedicated memory of the R5 M230 appears to tip the scales in OpenCL compute.

Looking at the broader benchmark picture, the R7 Graphics holds a higher average score of 4998 versus 4577 for the R5 M230. That average is built on two recorded tests for the R7: Geekbench OpenCL at 4015 and Geekbench Vulkan at 5980. The Vulkan score is significantly stronger, pulling the average up well above the OpenCL result. The R5 M230 has only one recorded test, the OpenCL score of 4577, so its average equals that single result.

The head-to-head OpenCL result puts the R5 M230 in a favorable light for compute tasks, despite its lower theoretical FP32. The 16.00 GB/s dedicated bandwidth likely helps the R5 M230 avoid the system memory contention that the R7 Graphics faces with its shared memory design. However, in Vulkan, the R7 Graphics shows a much higher ceiling, scoring 5980, which is 30.7% above its own OpenCL score. The R5 M230 has no recorded Vulkan score, so a direct comparison in that API is not possible from the database.

The percentile rankings reinforce the overall positioning. The R7 Graphics sits at the 29th percentile of all GPUs, while the R5 M230 sits at the 27th percentile. Both are low-end parts by modern standards, but the R7 Graphics edges ahead in aggregate standing. The nearest rival clusters for both are extremely tight, with deltas under 1.2%, suggesting both GPUs sit in a dense performance band where small variations in driver or workload can flip the order.

The Verdict

The data presents a split verdict. For raw compute in OpenCL, the AMD Radeon R5 M230 is the winner, taking the only direct head-to-head benchmark with a 4577 score against 4015 for the R7 Graphics. Its dedicated 2 GB DDR3 memory and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth likely explain this advantage, as the R7 Graphics must rely on system shared memory with bandwidth that is system dependent. Anyone prioritizing OpenCL compute performance should lean toward the R5 M230.

For overall average benchmark score, the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics comes out ahead at 4998 versus 4577, a gap of about 9.2%. This advantage is driven by its Vulkan score of 5980, which is far above anything the R5 M230 can demonstrate, since no Vulkan result is recorded for the latter. The R7 Graphics also has superior theoretical specs: 384 shading units versus 320, 553.0 GFLOPS versus 390.4, and 17.28 GTexel/s versus 12.20. Its newer GCN 2.0 architecture and DirectX 12 (12_0) support make it the more future-proof choice for API compatibility.

The verdict depends on the workload. For OpenCL compute, pick the R5 M230. For broader performance, Vulkan capability, and higher sustained throughput in modern APIs, the R7 Graphics is the better part. Both are end-of-life products with low percentile rankings, so neither should be chosen for demanding modern gaming. The R7 Graphics is better suited for systems where shared memory is fast and the workload favors its higher shader count, while the R5 M230 is preferable when dedicated memory bandwidth matters more than raw compute density.

Specification Differences

Below are the fields where the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics and AMD Radeon R5 M230 differ, based on the recorded database entries:

• Chip: Spectre Lite (R7) versus Jet (R5 M230)
• Architecture: GCN 2.0 versus GCN 1.0
• Generation: GCN 2.0 IGP (Kaveri) versus Gem System (R5 M200)
• Foundry: GlobalFoundries versus TSMC
• Transistors: 2,410 million versus 690 million
• Die Size: 245 mm² versus 56 mm²
• Transistor Density: 9.8M / mm² versus 12.3M / mm²
• Memory Clock: System Shared versus 1000 MHz (2 Gbps effective)
• Memory Size: System Shared versus 2 GB
• Memory Type: System Shared versus DDR3
• Memory Bus Width: System Shared versus 64 bit
• Memory Bandwidth: System Dependent versus 16.00 GB/s
• Shading Units: 384 versus 320
• Texture Mapping Units: 24 versus 20
• Pixel Rate: 5.760 GPixel/s versus 4.880 GPixel/s
• Texture Rate: 17.28 GTexel/s versus 12.20 GTexel/s
• FP32: 553.0 GFLOPS versus 390.4 GFLOPS
• TDP: 25 W versus null (not recorded)
• Bus Interface: IGP versus PCIe 3.0 x8
• Display Outputs: Motherboard Dependent versus Portable Device Dependent
• DirectX Support: 12 (12_0) versus 12 (11_1)
• Release Date: 2014-02-16 versus 2014-01-06
• Predecessor: TeraScale 3 IGP versus Solar System
• Successor: GCN 3.0 IGP versus Polaris Mobile
• Geekbench OpenCL Score: 4015 versus 4577
• Geekbench Vulkan Score: 5980 versus not recorded
• Average Benchmark Score: 4998 versus 4577
• Percentile vs All GPUs: 29 versus 27