CPU
GPU
Radeon R5 230
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 2500M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The Radeon R5 230 is positioned at rank 500 and the Quadro FX 2500M is on rank 282, so the Quadro FX 2500M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R5 230
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 2500M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon R5 230 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2008). The Radeon R5 230 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 2500M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon R5 230 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Quadro FX 2500M.
| Insight | Radeon R5 230 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon R5 230 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Counter-Strike 2
Valorant
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Radeon R5 230 and Quadro FX 2500M
Radeon R5 230
The Radeon R5 230 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 18 2017. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 222 points.
Quadro FX 2500M
The Quadro FX 2500M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 218 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R5 230 scores 222 and the Quadro FX 2500M reaches 218 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R5 230 is built on GCN 3.0 while the Quadro FX 2500M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (Radeon R5 230) vs 240 (Quadro FX 2500M). Raw compute: 0.7864 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 230) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 2500M).
| Feature | Radeon R5 230 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 222+2% | 218 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+60% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7864 TFLOPS+26% | 0.6221 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 80+233% |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 256 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R5 230 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 128 KB (Radeon R5 230) vs 256 KB (Quadro FX 2500M) — the Quadro FX 2500M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R5 230 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 256 KB+100% |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R5 230 draws 50W versus the Quadro FX 2500M's 189W — a 116.3% difference. The Radeon R5 230 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R5 230) vs 350W (Quadro FX 2500M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R5 230 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-74% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 4.4+267% | 1.2 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R5 230 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2008).
| Feature | Radeon R5 230 | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $50 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25 | — |
| Codename | Weston | GT200B |
| Release | April 18 2017 | November 11 2008 |
| Ranking | #873 | #815 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon R5 230 and Quadro FX 2500M
