HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) vs Radeon R5 M230

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1082not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Gen. 8 (2015−2016)
GPU code nameJetBraswell
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2014 (10 years ago)1 April 2016 (8 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 cores32012
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed825 MHz320 MHz
Boost clock speed855 MHz640 MHz
Number of transistors690 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknownno data
Texture fill rate17.10no data
Floating-point processing power0.5472 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs20no data

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0 x8no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8no data

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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount4 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bit64/128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth16 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1111.2
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.4no data
OpenCLNot Listedno data
Mantle+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R5 M230 1175
+237%
HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) 349

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R5 M230 771
+254%
HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) 218

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

R5 M230 4814
+161%
HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) 1841

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 January 2014 1 April 2016
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm

HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R5 M230 and HD Graphics 400 (Braswell). We've got no test results to judge.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R5 M230
Radeon R5 M230
Intel HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)
HD Graphics 400 (Braswell)

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


2.9 171 vote

Rate Radeon R5 M230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 227 votes

Rate HD Graphics 400 (Braswell) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.