NVS 510 vs Radeon R5 M230

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M230 with NVS 510, including specs and performance data.

R5 M230
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.07

NVS 510 outperforms R5 M230 by an impressive 67% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1085918
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.07
Power efficiencyno data3.56
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameJetGK107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date7 January 2014 (10 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores320192
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed825 MHz797 MHz
Boost clock speed855 MHzno data
Number of transistors690 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown35 Watt
Texture fill rate17.1012.75
Floating-point processing power0.5472 TFLOPS0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs2016

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 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth16 GB/s28.51 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort
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® 1112 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
Mantle+-
CUDA-3.0

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.

R5 M230 1.07
NVS 510 1.79
+67.3%

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.

R5 M230 414
NVS 510 692
+67.1%

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 HD10
−60%
16−18
+60%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data28.06

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−56.3%
50−55
+56.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−56.3%
50−55
+56.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
−60%
8−9
+60%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−61.5%
21−24
+61.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−63.6%
18−20
+63.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−56.3%
50−55
+56.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

This is how R5 M230 and NVS 510 compete in popular games:

  • NVS 510 is 60% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.07 1.79
Recency 7 January 2014 23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB

R5 M230 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

NVS 510, on the other hand, has a 67.3% higher aggregate performance score.

The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 M230 is a notebook card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.


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
NVIDIA NVS 510
NVS 510

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.


2.9 172 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 60 votes

Rate NVS 510 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.