GeForce MX230 vs Radeon R5 A255
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 611 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.60 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2017) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Topaz | N17S-G0 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2014 (10 years ago) | 20 February 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Current price | no data | $1221 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 1519 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | 1531 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 | 25.31 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon R5 A255 and GeForce MX230 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4 GB/s | 7000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 48.06 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 | Portable Device Dependent | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.170 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Pros & cons summary
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
GeForce MX230 has a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon R5 A255 and GeForce MX230. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon R5 A255 is a desktop card while GeForce MX230 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
