ATI Radeon HD 5870 vs UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) with Radeon HD 5870, including specs and performance data.
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) outperforms ATI HD 5870 by a whopping 143% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 379 | 608 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.58 |
| Power efficiency | 64.55 | 2.11 |
| Architecture | no data | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | Rocket Lake GT1 | Cypress |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 30 March 2021 (3 years ago) | 23 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | no data | 1600 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 850 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 2,154 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 188 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 68.00 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.72 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 80 |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 282 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 6-pin |
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 | no data | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 153.6 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 Connectors | no data | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | no data | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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.
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.
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 | 12
+200%
| 4−5
−200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 99.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+164%
|
14−16
−164%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Dota 2 | 13
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Fortnite | 75−80
+163%
|
30−33
−163%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+164%
|
14−16
−164%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+155%
|
40−45
−155%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+169%
|
16−18
−169%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| World of Tanks | 180−190
+147%
|
75−80
−147%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+156%
|
18−20
−156%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Dota 2 | 25
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+148%
|
21−24
−148%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+164%
|
14−16
−164%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 100−110
+155%
|
40−45
−155%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+167%
|
21−24
−167%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+150%
|
50−55
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| World of Tanks | 95−100
+148%
|
40−45
−148%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+180%
|
10−11
−180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+175%
|
12−14
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35
+183%
|
12−14
−183%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−33
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 24−27
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+150%
|
8−9
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
This is how UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) and ATI HD 5870 compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is 200% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.46 | 5.53 |
| Recency | 30 March 2021 | 23 September 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 188 Watt |
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) has a 143.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 1153.3% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 5870 in performance tests.
Be aware that UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) is a notebook card while Radeon HD 5870 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.
