OVERALL
ALTERNATIVES
SPECS
VS AVERAGE
REVIEWS
Scored using Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Graphics cards Methodology v3.0
Mathematical & Unbiased Scoring
Products in this category are scored under Frontum Graphics cards Methodology v3.0: the technical score from the specifications is the base, and independent expert and video reviews (up to ±0.5 points), owner opinions (up to ±0.3) and best-of lists (up to +0.3) move it up or down.
Explore Graphics cards Methodology v3.0

AMD Radeon R2 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£180VRAM:?Memory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):15 W

AMD Radeon R2 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 1 expert reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

5.4/10

Overall score

Score
5.4/ 10
✕
What it is
Our main score for this model, 1–10. It combines specs, expert reviews, best-of lists and owners.
How we count it
Parts: Technical score 40%, Reviews score 25%, List score 25%, Sentiment score 10%
Marks: Each part gets a mark out of 10. For reviews, lists and owners, a typical model in this category gets about 8 and the best one gets 10.
No data yet: A part with no data shows "?". It counts as the mark of a weaker model in this category (4 in 5 models with data score higher). This way, models with reviews, lists and owners usually come out ahead.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 94% of models
Score components

40%

4.7

Technical score

25%

4.7

Reviews score

25%

?

List scoreNot enough data yet, so we use 7.5, the mark of a weaker model in this category

10%

4.7

Sentiment score

â–¼Worse than 94% of graphics cards
6.7

Value for money

Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

â–¼Worse than 83%
4.7

Technical score

Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

6.6

Memory

12%

8.0

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

6.2

Connectivity

â–¼Worse than 87%
4.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
How we count it
Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 91% of models

4.7

Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.8

Average grade

20%

5.0

Popularity

Grades by review (1)
1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
â–¼Worse than 91%
?

List score

List score
7.5/ 10
✕
What it is
How often independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers put this model in their best-of lists for this category.
How we count it
Points: The model in the most lists of this category gets 10; the others get 8 to 10 in proportion. In no list yet: 7.5. Lists count 25% of the overall score.
Enough data: Every list counts, even a single one. With fewer than 5 best-of lists in the category, this part is left out.
Lists with this model (0)
Not in any best-of list yet, so this part counts as 7.5. Models in a list get 8 to 10.
Not in any best-of list yet
  • No image
No image
Where to buy
    N/A~ £180
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What owners say about the AMD Radeon R2

Based on 52 owners sharing their experience in online comments

27%positive10%mixed63%negative

Some games remain playable, but low and unstable frame rates dominate the complaints.

What owners dislike

  • Frame rates often drop to single digits or very low numbers in many games, making gameplay hard to enjoy even on low settings.16
  • Some games fail to load or start at all, including Fortnite, Valorant, Counter-Strike 1.6 and PES 13.7
  • Frame rates fall sharply after an hour or two of play, or during heavy team fights, as the laptop overheats without cooling.6
  • Overclocking does not help because the GPU clock is locked by the BIOS at 351 MHz and memory at 667 MHz.5

Points mentioned by at least 3 owners, most mentioned first.

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon R2

Technical score
Technical score
4.7/ 10
✕
What it is
How good the specs are compared with the other models in this category, 1–10.
How we count it
Areas: We rate the specs in each area against the other models in this category.
Weighting: The areas that matter most to buyers count more. The shares are shown under Score components.
Share: The technical score is 40% of the overall score.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 87% of models
Score components:

44%

2.1

Performance

24%

6.6

Memory

12%

8.0

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

7.6

Design

4%

6.2

Connectivity

4.7
Reviews score
4.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.7/ 10
✕
What it is
An indicator that combines the graphics card's overall rating with its cost.
When it matters
When you are looking for a graphics card that offers a strong balance of performance, features, and price.
Score distribution
â–¼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
â–¼ Worse than 83% of models
Score components:

70%

5.4

Overall score

30%

9.6

Price

6.7
3DMark Time Spy benchmark score
?
3DMark Port Royal score
0 points
Market range: <0 points – >22.4k points
This graphics card scores 0 points in 3DMark Port Royal, which is lower than 83.1% of graphics cards and equal to 16.9% of graphics cards.
PassMark (G3D) result
?
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
?
FP32 performance
0.15 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 0.15 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards.
Show more
VRAM
?
Memory type
DDR4
This graphics card uses DDR4 memory, which is older than on 98.8% of graphics cards and equal to 0.1% of graphics cards.
Memory bus width
64 bit
Market range: <128 bit – >384 bit
This graphics card uses a 64 bit memory bus, which is narrower than that of 96.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 3.3% of graphics cards.
Maximum memory bandwidth
?
Effective memory speed
?
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
?
PCIe lanes
?
DirectX version
12
This graphics card supports DirectX 12, which is older than on 81.8% of graphics cards and equal to 17% of graphics cards.
Vulkan version
1.1
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.1, which is older than on 98.9% of graphics cards and equal to 0.3% of graphics cards.
OpenGL version
4.6
This graphics card supports OpenGL 4.6, which is more advanced than on 2% of graphics cards and equal to 98% of graphics cards.
Show more
Max displays supported
2
Market range: <4 – >4
This graphics card supports up to 2 displays, which is fewer than 97.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2.1% of graphics cards.
Max digital resolution
3840x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 3840x2160, which is lower than that of 97% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.9% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
?
DisplayPort version
1.2
This graphics card supports DisplayPort 1.2, which is older than on 93.9% of graphics cards and equal to 5.1% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort link rates
5.4 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 5.4 Gbps, which is slower than on 87.9% of graphics cards and equal to 6% of graphics cards.
Show more
Thermal Design Power (TDP)
15 W
Market range: <86 W – >360 W
This graphics card has a TDP of 15 W, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.3% of graphics cards.
Power consumption while under peak load
?
Recommended PSU wattage
?
Board power limit
15 W
Market range: <107 W – >400 W
This graphics card has a board power limit of 15 W, which is lower than that of 99.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
PCIe power spec
?
Show more
Size
?
Length
?
Height
?
Slot width
?
Weight
?
Show more

AMD Radeon R2 vs the average graphics card

246810TotalPerformanceMemoryFeaturesConnectivityPowerDesign
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 93.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (15 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    15 W vs 220 W
  • 2.89x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R2 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£180 vs £520).
    £180 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 63.6% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (107 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    107 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 2.89x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R2 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£180 vs £520).
    £180 vs £520
  • More FP64 throughput
    This graphics card has a better FP64 ratio than the average graphics card (1:16 vs 1:64).
    1:16 vs 1:64
  • 63.6% smaller GPU die
    This graphics card has a lower GPU die size than the average graphics card (107 mm² vs 294 mm²). The average graphics card has a GPU die size of 294 mm².
    107 mm² vs 294 mm²
  • 93% lower TDP
    This graphics card has a lower TDP than the average graphics card (15 W vs 215 W). The average graphics card has a TDP of 215 W.
    15 W vs 215 W
  • 93.2% lower board power limit
    This graphics card has a lower board power limit than the average graphics card (15 W vs 220 W). The average graphics card has a board power limit of 220 W.
    15 W vs 220 W
  • 76% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (600 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    600 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 38 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (2 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    2 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • 81.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (351 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    351 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 34.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models

    4.7

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.7 vs 7.2
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 176 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (8 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    8 vs 184
  • 34.7% lower review score
    Reviews score
    4.7/ 10
    ✕
    What it is
    Average grade from independent test sites, magazines and video reviewers, 1–10.
    How we count it
    Grades: Each review's own score is converted to 1–10; without one, we grade the review ourselves. Big test sites count more, short reviews half as much as full tests. A video review counts half.
    Score: The average grade is 80% of the review mark; the number of reviews is the other 20% (1 review = 5, the typical number in this category = 8, the most-reviewed model = 10).
    Enough data: With few reviews, the average grade is pulled toward the typical grade of this category. No reviews yet: 7.6 for now.
    Share: Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    Score distribution
    â–¼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    â–¼ Worse than 91% of models

    4.7

    Mark 7.2 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.8

    Average grade

    20%

    5.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (1)
    1 review, its grade estimated from the review text. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    4.7 vs 7.2
  • 39.7% lower sentiment score
    4.7 vs 7.8
  • 11.1% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon R2 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.67 vs 7.4).
    6.67 vs 7.41
  • 76% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (600 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    600 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 38 fewer compute units
    This graphics card has fewer compute units than the average graphics card (2 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 compute units.
    2 vs 40
  • 40 fewer ray tracing cores
    This graphics card has fewer ray tracing cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 40). The average graphics card has 40 ray tracing cores.
    0 vs 40
  • 81.7% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (351 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    351 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 176 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (8 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    8 vs 184
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 99.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (1.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    1.4 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 60 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (4 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    4 vs 64
  • 144 fewer AI cores
    This graphics card has fewer AI cores than the average graphics card (0 vs 144). The average graphics card has 144 AI cores.
    0 vs 144
  • 99.3% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    0.15 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 8 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2015 vs 2023).
    January 2015
    2015 vs 2023
  • 99.5% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.2 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.15 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 97.9% lower FP64 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP64 performance than the average graphics card (0 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP64 performance of 0.48 TFLOPS.
    0.01 TFLOPS vs 0.48 TFLOPS
  • 4,224 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (128 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    128 vs 4,352
  • 128 bit narrower memory bus
    This graphics card has a narrower memory bus than the average graphics card (64 bit vs 192 bit). The average graphics card has a memory bus width of 192 bit.
    64 bit vs 192 bit
  • 87.5% smaller L1 cache
    This graphics card has fewer L1 cache than the average graphics card (16 KB vs 128 KB). The average graphics card has 128 KB L1 cache.
    16 KB vs 128 KB
  • Older GDDR version
    This graphics card uses an older GDDR version than the average graphics card (DDR4 vs GDDR6).
    DDR4 vs GDDR6
  • 5.6x larger process node
    This graphics card uses a larger manufacturing process than the average graphics card (28 nm vs 5 nm). The average graphics card uses a manufacturing process of 5 nm.
    28 nm vs 5 nm
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • No DLSS support
    This graphics card does not support DLSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No ray tracing
    This graphics card does not support ray tracing, the average graphics card does.
  • No AI upscalers
    This graphics card does not support AI upscalers, the average graphics card does.
  • No XeSS support
    This graphics card does not support XeSS, the average graphics card does.
  • No mesh shaders
    This graphics card does not support mesh shaders, the average graphics card does.
  • Older Vulkan version
    This graphics card supports an older Vulkan version than the average graphics card (1.1 vs 1.4).
    1.1 vs 1.4
  • No DirectStorage support
    This graphics card does not support DirectStorage, the average graphics card does.
  • No Resizable BAR
    This graphics card does not support Resizable BAR, while the average graphics card does. 76.4% of Graphics cards support it.
  • Older DirectX version
    This graphics card supports an older DirectX version than the average graphics card (12 vs 12 Ultimate).
    12 vs 12 Ultimate
  • Older OpenCL version
    This graphics card supports an older OpenCL version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 3).
    1.2 vs 3
  • Older shader model
    This graphics card supports an older shader model than the average graphics card (6.5 vs 6.8).
    6.5 vs 6.8
  • No sampler feedback
    This graphics card does not support sampler feedback, the average graphics card does.
  • 95.9% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (930 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    930 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (1 vs 3.1).
    1 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.4a vs 2.1a).
    1.4a vs 2.1a
  • No AV1 encoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 encoding, the average graphics card does.
  • 2 fewer displays supported
    This graphics card supports fewer displays than the average graphics card (2 vs 4). The average graphics card supports 4 displays.
    2 vs 4
  • No AV1 decoding
    This graphics card does not support AV1 decoding, the average graphics card does.
  • No DSC support
    This graphics card does not support DSC, the average graphics card does.
  • No VRR support
    This graphics card does not support VRR, the average graphics card does.
  • Older DisplayPort version
    This graphics card supports an older DisplayPort version than the average graphics card (1.2 vs 1.4a).
    1.2 vs 1.4a
  • More basic codec support
    This graphics card encodes more basic formats than the average graphics card (H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9).
    H.264/H.265 vs H.264/H.265/AV1/VP9
  • Older HDCP version
    This graphics card supports an older HDCP version than the average graphics card (1.4 vs 2.3).
    1.4 vs 2.3
  • Lower display resolution
    This graphics card supports a lower maximum digital resolution than the average graphics card (3840x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    3840x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 75% lower DisplayPort bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower DisplayPort bandwidth than the average graphics card (5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps). The average graphics card has DisplayPort bandwidth of 21.6 Gbps.
    5.4 Gbps vs 21.6 Gbps
  • No overclocking support
    This graphics card does not support overclocking, the average graphics card does.
  • No dual BIOS
    This graphics card does not include dual BIOS, the average graphics card does.
  • No fan stop
    This graphics card does not support fan stop, the average graphics card does.
  • No backplate
    This graphics card does not include a backplate, the average graphics card does.
  • No RGB lighting
    This graphics card does not include RGB lighting, the average graphics card does.

Video reviews

Hands-on testing, unboxing, and real-world video evaluations

Not graded

Expert reviews

In-depth analysis and verdict from leading tech publications

6.0
laptoping.com
≈ estimated
29/10/2018
Laptop review · Budget chip
Verdict
The AMD E1-6010 with Radeon R2 is a basic laptop chip that handles web, office and video, but its gaming is limited to less demanding titles at low settings.

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon R2

  • Efficient power consumption (rated at approximately 10-15W), making it suitable for thin and light laptops.
  • Hardware support for modern APIs including DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.1, and Vulkan.
  • Capable of basic non-gaming tasks like internet browsing, YouTube playback, and office productivity.
  • Includes a Unified Video Decoder (UVD 6) that supports hardware decoding for HEVC/H.265 and 4K video.
  • Extreme affordability as an integrated solution that avoids the cost of a dedicated GPU.

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon R2

  • Very poor gaming performance; even older, undemanding titles like World of Warcraft require low settings to run fluently.
  • Highly dependent on system RAM and TDP configuration, which can lead to significant performance variations between different laptops.
  • Frequent user reports of low frame rates and stuttering in most modern 3D applications.
  • Outdated 28nm architecture that lacks the performance-per-watt found in more modern integrated solutions like RDNA2 or RDNA3.
  • Struggles with high-resolution tasks; often struggles to maintain stability at 1080p in anything beyond basic 2D interfaces.

Verdict

The AMD Radeon R2 is an integrated graphics solution found in entry-level mobile APUs like the Stoney Ridge and Beema series, utilizing a 28 nm manufacturing process and the GCN architecture. It typically features 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 ROPs, with clock speeds ranging from a 200–300 MHz base up to a 600 MHz boost. A primary advantage is its extremely low power consumption (TDP of 10–15W), making it suitable for thin and light laptops, alongside support for DirectX 12 and 4K video decoding via the Unified Video Decoder (UVD). However, it suffers from significant performance limitations as it lacks dedicated VRAM, relying instead on shared system memory over a 64-bit bus, which restricts it to only basic web browsing and very undemanding or older games at low settings.

Compare AMD Radeon R2 with other products in the Graphics cards category

1Product to compare no. 1
VS
2Product to compare no. 2
VS
3Product to compare no. 3 (optional)

Graphic comparison of AMD Radeon R2 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found