Riva TNT2 vs Radeon R5 M230
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M230 with Riva TNT2, including specs and performance data.
R5 M230 outperforms Riva TNT2 by a whopping 10100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1153 | 1592 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Fahrenheit (1998−2000) |
| GPU code name | Jet | NV5 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 7 January 2014 (12 years ago) | 12 October 1999 (26 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 cores | 320 | no data |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 125 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 15 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 250 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 0.25 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 2 |
| TMUs | 20 | 2 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no 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 support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | AGP 4x |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3 | SDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 150 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 2.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x VGA |
| 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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 6.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 1.2 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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 HD | 10 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.02 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 7 January 2014 | 12 October 1999 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 250 nm |
R5 M230 has a 10100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 793% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 M230 is our recommended choice as it beats the Riva TNT2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M230 is a notebook graphics card while Riva TNT2 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
