Radeon R9 M485X vs R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
R1E Mobile Graphics R2 Mobile Graphics R2E Mobile Graphics R3 Mobile Graphics R3E Mobile Graphics R4 (Beema) R4E Mobile Graphics R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) R5E Mobile Graphics
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
E8950 R9 M295X R9 M295X Mac Edition R9 M390X R9 M395X R9 M395X Mac Edition R9 M485X

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) and Radeon R9 M485X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
2014
0.99

R9 M485X outperforms R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) by a whopping 818% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
R9 M485X R9 M485X

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1161524
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data2.80
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 (2014)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameBeemaAmethyst
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date29 April 2014 (11 years ago)15 May 2016 (9 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 cores1282048
Core clock speedno data723 MHz
Boost clock speed850 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data5,000 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data250 Watt
Texture fill rateno data92.54
Floating-point processing powerno data2.961 TFLOPS
ROPsno data32
TMUsno data128
L1 Cacheno data512 KB
L2 Cacheno data512 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
Interfaceno dataMXM-B (3.0)
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 data8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data160.0 GB/s
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 dataNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.3
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-1.2.131

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 HD6
−817%
55−60
+817%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−850%
18−20
+850%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−850%
18−20
+850%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Fortnite 1−2
−5500%
55−60
+5500%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−2700%
27−30
+2700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−267%
30−35
+267%
Valorant 30−35
−190%
90−95
+190%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
−464%
140−150
+464%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−850%
18−20
+850%
Dota 2 14−16
−347%
65−70
+347%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Fortnite 1−2
−5500%
55−60
+5500%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
−2700%
27−30
+2700%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−267%
30−35
+267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Valorant 30−35
−190%
90−95
+190%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−850%
18−20
+850%
Dota 2 14−16
−347%
65−70
+347%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2900%
30−33
+2900%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−267%
30−35
+267%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
−300%
24−27
+300%
Valorant 30−35
−190%
90−95
+190%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−5500%
55−60
+5500%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
−325%
16−18
+325%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
−1067%
70−75
+1067%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12
−336%
45−50
+336%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 7−8
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1800%
18−20
+1800%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−633%
21−24
+633%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−550%
12−14
+550%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−1800%
18−20
+1800%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−42.9%
20−22
+42.9%
Valorant 5−6
−860%
45−50
+860%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

This is how R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) and R9 M485X compete in popular games:

  • R9 M485X is 817% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R9 M485X is 5500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M485X performs better in 38 tests (64%)
  • there's a draw in 21 tests (36%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.99 9.09
Recency 29 April 2014 15 May 2016

R9 M485X has a 818% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

The Radeon R9 M485X is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) in performance tests.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
vs
HD 7570M Radeon HD 7570M
R9 M485X Radeon R9 M485X
vs
GTX 680MX GeForce GTX 680MX
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
vs
GeForce 810M GeForce 810M
HD Graphics (Broadwell) HD Graphics (Broadwell)
vs
Arc A580 Arc A580
HD Graphics 500 HD Graphics 500
vs
6000 SDI 6000 SDI
HD Graphics 500 HD Graphics 500
vs
Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB Tesla V100 SXM2 16 GB
HD Graphics 500 HD Graphics 500
vs
T1200 Max-Q T1200 Max-Q
HD Graphics 500 HD Graphics 500
vs
RTX 5050 9 GB RTX 5050 9 GB
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
vs
GTX 780 6 GB GTX 780 6 GB
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
vs
S10000 Passive 12GB S10000 Passive 12GB
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
vs
ATI 9800 PRO 9800 PRO
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
vs
Riva TNT2 PRO Riva TNT2 PRO
R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L)
vs
R9 M380 Mac Edition R9 M380 Mac Edition

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

4.4 21 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Radeon R9 M485X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 (Beema/Carrizo-L) or Radeon R9 M485X, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.