Radeon HD 6310 vs R5 M230

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M230 and Radeon HD 6310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R5 M230
2014
4 GB DDR3
1.07
+234%

R5 M230 outperforms HD 6310 by a whopping 234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10891313
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.22
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code nameJetLoveland
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2014 (10 years ago)9 November 2010 (14 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 cores32080
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed825 MHz276 MHz
Boost clock speed855 MHzno data
Number of transistors690 million450 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown18 Watt
Texture fill rate17.102.208
Floating-point processing power0.5472 TFLOPS0.04416 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs208

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 x8IGP

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1000 MHzSystem Shared
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 outputs
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 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.0
OpenGL4.44.4
OpenCLNot Listed1.2
Vulkan-N/A
Mantle+-

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
+234%
HD 6310 0.32

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
+239%
HD 6310 122

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
+368%
HD 6310 251

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
+400%
2−3
−400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+14.3%
27−30
−14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+14.3%
27−30
−14.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+14.3%
27−30
−14.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

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
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R5 M230 and HD 6310 compete in popular games:

  • R5 M230 is 400% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 M230 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 M230 is ahead in 27 tests (93%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.07 0.32
Recency 7 January 2014 9 November 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R5 M230 has a 234.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R5 M230 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6310 in performance tests.


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
AMD Radeon HD 6310
Radeon HD 6310

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.


2.9 174 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 260 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6310 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.