GeForce GT 230 vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with GeForce GT 230, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
6.04
+619%

RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GT 230 by a whopping 619% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5801133
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency29.050.81
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameVega RenoirG94B
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2020 (4 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$43.99

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 cores38448
Core clock speed400 MHz650 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data505 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rateno data15.60
Floating-point processing powerno data0.156 TFLOPS
ROPsno data16
TMUsno data24

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data512 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data900 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data57.6 GB/s
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 dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_111.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-1.1

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 HD20
+900%
2−3
−900%
1440p28
+833%
3−4
−833%
4K18
+800%
2−3
−800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16
+700%
2−3
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+800%
1−2
−800%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+720%
5−6
−720%
Hitman 3 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Horizon Zero Dawn 97
+708%
12−14
−708%
Metro Exodus 23
+667%
3−4
−667%
Red Dead Redemption 2 22
+633%
3−4
−633%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21−24
+633%
3−4
−633%
Watch Dogs: Legion 62
+675%
8−9
−675%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Cyberpunk 2077 6 0−1
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+800%
2−3
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+720%
5−6
−720%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 73
+630%
10−11
−630%
Metro Exodus 17
+750%
2−3
−750%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21
+950%
2−3
−950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+900%
2−3
−900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50
+733%
6−7
−733%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+720%
5−6
−720%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 17
+750%
2−3
−750%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
+800%
2−3
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
+629%
7−8
−629%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+850%
2−3
−850%
Hitman 3 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 40−45
+700%
5−6
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 2−3 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GT 230 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 900% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 833% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 800% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 6.04 0.84
Recency 7 January 2020 12 October 2009
Chip lithography 7 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 75 Watt

RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 619% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 685.7% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 230 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce GT 230 is a desktop 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 RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 230
GeForce GT 230

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.


4 674 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 64 votes

Rate GeForce GT 230 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.