Radeon HD 6230 vs HD 8210

Place in the ranking	1236	1238
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.20	1.66
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	Kalindi	Park
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	31 January 2014 (10 years ago)	2 July 2011 (13 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 cores	128	80
Core clock speed	300 MHz	650 MHz
Number of transistors	1,178 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	8 Watt	19 Watt
Texture fill rate	2.400	5.200
Floating-point processing power	0.0768 TFLOPS	0.104 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	4
TMUs	8	8

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).

Interface	IGP	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	System Shared	DDR2
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	667 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.3	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

HD 8210 0.49
+6.5%

HD 6230 0.46

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

HD 8210 190
+6.1%

HD 6230 179

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

5
+25%

4−5

−25%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3
+100%

1−2

−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +16.7%	24−27 −16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +16.7%	24−27 −16.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Hitman 3	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +12.5%	8−9 −12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +16.7%	24−27 −16.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
+100%

1−2

−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
+100%

1−2

−100%

This is how HD 8210 and HD 6230 compete in popular games:

HD 8210 is 25% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.49	0.46
Recency	31 January 2014	2 July 2011
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	8 Watt	19 Watt

HD 8210 has a 6.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 137.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 8210 and Radeon HD 6230.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8210 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 6230 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.