Thursday, April 3rd 2014

AMD Launches Radeon R5 230 in the Retail Channel, Gigabyte Outs its Offering

AMD launched a new entry-level GPU for those who need a bare-essentials graphics card for their desktop, which so happens to lack integrated graphics (think Intel HEDT platform). Called the Radeon R5 230, the chip is based on the "Caicos" silicon, and features 160 stream processors, 8 TMUs, and 4 ROPs. It supports DirectX 11 and OpenGL 4.3. Its core is clocked at 625 MHz. It features a 64-bit wide DDR3 memory interface, holding 1 GB of memory, clocked at 1066 MHz. Pictured below is the first AIB-branded R5 230 card for the retail channel, Gigabyte's R523D3-1GL, with a single-slot, half-height built, and a tiny fan-heatsink keeping its GPU cool. AMD could price the card around the $50 mark.
Add your own comment

19 Comments on AMD Launches Radeon R5 230 in the Retail Channel, Gigabyte Outs its Offering

#1
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
Oh look. A 5450 rebrand. Why not just call the chip Cedar? Double the shading units, and yet lower pixel/texture rate. Glorified 5450 with double the RAM! 6450 rebrand!
Posted on Reply
#2
HalfAHertz
by: RCoon
Oh look. A 5450 rebrand. Why not just call the chip Cedar? Double the shading units, and yet lower pixel/texture rate. Glorified 5450 with double the RAM!
It's a 6450 because it has 160 shaders :p
Posted on Reply
#3
Overclocker_2001
a poor 6450 (not 5450 ;-) ) rebrand with sucky 1066MHz (effective! ouch!) ddr3 64bit
next step 1333MHz 32bit sdram?

with only 8.5GB/s of bandwith it is only able to drive 2D or pre 2000 games at low resolution (damn a 9800pro is way better!)

iphone's gpu is better than this O.o
Posted on Reply
#4
ISI300
They should probably have named it the R3 230 or R1 230.
Posted on Reply
#5
Lionheart
by: RCoon
Oh look. A 5450 rebrand. Why not just call the chip Cedar? Double the shading units, and yet lower pixel/texture rate. Glorified 5450 with double the RAM!
About the 3rd time you've whined about something AMD related in past 2 days -_-
Posted on Reply
#6
jigar2speed
by: Lionheart
About the 3rd time you've whined about something AMD related in past 2 days -_-
He is paid for that, don't you know ?
Posted on Reply
#7
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
by: Lionheart
About the 3rd time you've whined about something AMD related in past 2 days -_-
I'm the anti-jorge. :laugh:
But I don't have specific beef with AMD, I hate on all brands. I just dislike rebrands.
We shouldn't let companies get away with stirring the pot and sticking a new label on it. Makes things stagnant.

EDIT: Maybe you shouldn't take it so personally, as you seem to make a big deal out of pointing it out. I recommend you leave it out.

by: HalfAHertz
It's a 6450 because it has 160 shaders :p
Ah, with half the memory!

by: jigar2speed
He is paid for that, don't you know ?
I wish I was paid to write an opinion based on extrapolated evidence from TPU's GPU database (which was wrong but has since been edited, besides that, it's now factual). Maybe I should make an application?
Posted on Reply
#8
jigar2speed
by: RCoon

I wish I was paid to write an opinion based on extrapolated evidence from TPU's GPU database (which was wrong but has since been edited, besides that, it's now factual). Maybe I should make an application?
LOL,
Posted on Reply
#9
Prima.Vera
64bit DDR3?? S3 Trio64V+ would be jealous man.
Posted on Reply
#10
dados8756
such beautiful minimalistic design, even it lacks power :p
Posted on Reply
#11
Casecutter
Still more than Intel HD Graphics 4000, while this market area is exactly where AMD would rather see APU's fill for OEM's. They'd rather not even offer a card for this, other than a good upgrade for every Intel CPU sold. If it's so lucrative that it demands a "new chip", why or where is Nvidia? Actually Nvidia has walked away from this segment... 3 or more years ago. With the 40Nm rebrands of 520 Fermi as GT 610 at 29W TDP, or 630 just a rebadge of the GT 440 (65W TDP)... pitiful power, performance and price. Nvidia hasn't got a grip in this area, and they're the ones with no alternate arrangement, both Intel, AMD have low power on-chip GPU solutions. Nvidia has forfeited with no acceptable solution, for the low power, half-height, SFF, Media, HTPC segment.

Bashing AMD on this, hypocrites… AMD has little reason to produce some “new card” for a segment they have the lock on, or see/want to sell an APU to. While Nvidia has this great "Maxwell design" that could supposedly blow this out of the water and they don’t seem to want to get any "skin" in the game.
Posted on Reply
#12
Thefumigator
What about power consumption compared to 6450? is there any info yet?
Posted on Reply
#13
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
by: Thefumigator
What about power consumption compared to 6450? is there any info yet?
Same as a 6450, same chip, check the TDP on the TPU database. Less VRAM, so that might help a tiny fraction.

by: Casecutter
While Nvidia has this great "Maxwell design" that could supposedly blow this out of the water and they don’t seem to want to get any "skin" in the game.
Profit margin is nonexistant in that market. We're talking GPU's that cost the consumer £20/$30. The cost of a GPU's materials probably take up most of that.
Posted on Reply
#14
Casecutter
by: RCoon
Profit margin is nonexistant in that market. We're talking GPU's that cost the consumer £20/$30. The cost of a GPU's materials probably take up most of that.
So
Nvidia can't measure up/contest (stagnant) in making a 28Nm, but you’re the first one to blast AMD on a rebrand... like I said... Thanks!
Posted on Reply
#15
RCoon
Gaming Moderator
by: Casecutter
So
Nvidia can't measure up/contest in making a 28Nm, but you’re the first one to blast AMD on a rebrand... like I said... Thanks!
My point is they don't need to rebrand, they're making people think it's a shiny new card that's more efficient and might have a chance of being a GCN card and provide extras. But it's not. They could just continue selling their 6450 stocks as they are, instead of allowing retailers and places like PC world to mislead customers into thinking they're getting new tech with new support.

And why would NVidia want to get into a market to compete for pennies on the pound? They make all their money over charging for GPU's and bringing out profit maximising cards like the Titan.

Where I work we still buy 5450's and GTX 210's because they're £20 a pop and allow for dual screens on basic computers, and drive 1440p IPS monitors. We don't care about new tech or ridiculous new naming monikers for something we are very familiar with.
Posted on Reply
#16
Casecutter
Squirrel... where?

Your feelings are for the uninformed and those not cognizant of what they’re purchasing... such a upright attitude.

But yes in this low end, dual monitor segment needing anything over a 5450 at 20W TDP is all most are looking for, 6450's aren't significantly different to merit anting up to. The G210 (30.5W TDP) which are not readily found while more expensive, why?
Posted on Reply
#17
damric
Instead of engineering a $65 entry level GCN card with 160 shaders, AMD would rather you just buy a $45 A4 APU with 160 shaders. But I guess for the typical walmart consumer that insists on keeping a throwaway pc with a celeron inside, a rebranded HD 6450 is a good upgrade.
Posted on Reply
#18
debs3759
by: damric
Instead of engineering a $65 entry level GCN card with 160 shaders, AMD would rather you just buy a $45 A4 APU with 160 shaders. But I guess for the typical walmart consumer that insists on keeping a throwaway pc with a celeron inside, a rebranded HD 6450 is a good upgrade.
Where did you read that it is GCN? This is a previous generation GPU rebranded to fit with more modern card naming.
Posted on Reply
#19
MrStim
your missing the point.
rebrand is to identify it properly within the current product stack.
its a gpu that is good for its purpose. e.g driving 2 or 3 monitor's on the cheap.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment