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 R5 review: 117 specs compared

Avg. price:~£45VRAM:2 GBMemory bus width:64 bitThermal Design Power (TDP):15 W

AMD Radeon R5 Review: Compare 117 technical specifications and 4 expert and video reviews to see how this product ranks in the Graphics cards category and whether it is worth buying.

AMD Radeon R5
4.6/10

Overall score

Score
4.6/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 99% of models
Score components

40%

3.7

Technical score

25%

3.7

Reviews score

25%

?

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

10%

3.7

Sentiment score

▼Worse than 99% of graphics cards
6.2

Value for money

Value for money
6.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

▼Worse than 93%
3.7

Technical score

Technical score
3.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components

44%

2.0

Performance

24%

1.9

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

5.0

Connectivity

▼Worse than 96%
3.7

Reviews score

Reviews score
3.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 97% of models

3.7

Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

80%

7.2

Average grade

20%

8.0

Popularity

Grades by review (4)
4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
▼Worse than 97%
?

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
  • amd-radeon-r5
  • amd-radeon-r5
  • amd-radeon-r5
  • amd-radeon-r5
  • amd-radeon-r5
amd-radeon-r5
amd-radeon-r5
amd-radeon-r5
amd-radeon-r5
amd-radeon-r5
Where to buy
*As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
Best rankings
Available: ranking among products currently available (including other versions of this product).All: ranking among all products in the database.

What reviewers say about the AMD Radeon R5

Based on 0 · 7

Reviewers find it good value for basic use, but most agree it struggles with gaming.
Praised
Criticised
Pick a topic to see who said what

What owners say about the AMD Radeon R5

Based on 205 owners sharing their experience in online comments

31%positive23%mixed46%negative

Owners value its low price and occasional playable game performance, but weak frame rates, overheating, and driver trouble dominate.

What owners dislike

  • Frame rates are too low for many newer games, often in the 10 to 30 fps range even at low settings and 720p.41
  • Frame rates jump up and down during play, with drops to 30 fps or lower after a while, especially during streaming.15
  • Some owners report driver errors, crashes and freezes, and newer driver versions sometimes fail to install or cause problems.14
  • The card and its chip get very hot under load, and performance drops when the temperature rises.11
  • Games often show only 512 MB or 1 GB of video memory instead of the full 2 GB.9
  • An older processor or limited RAM holds back the card, so games run slower than the graphics card alone would suggest.8
  • Screens flicker, show purple or wrong colours, or display missing ground and buildings in some games.8
  • Feels slow for everyday use, with long load times and sluggish performance in basic tasks.6
  • Games often run on the integrated Intel or AMD graphics instead of this card unless the setting is changed manually.5
  • Owners say games run far worse than the videos they watched, with much lower frame rates than shown.5

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

Loading category ranking...

Technical Specifications of graphics card AMD Radeon R5

Technical score
Technical score
3.7/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 96% of models
Score components:

44%

2.0

Performance

24%

1.9

Memory

12%

8.9

Power

11%

6.1

Features

5%

8.4

Design

4%

5.0

Connectivity

3.7
Reviews score
3.7
List score
?
Value for money
Value for money
6.2/ 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
▼
<55-66-77-88-99-10
▼ Worse than 93% of models
Score components:

70%

4.6

Overall score

30%

10

Price

6.2
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
600 points
Market range: <7.7k points – >36k points
This graphics card scores 600 points in PassMark G3D, which is lower than 100% of graphics cards.
PassMark (DirectCompute) result
350 points
Market range: <3.1k points – >26.3k points
This graphics card scores 350 points in PassMark DirectCompute, which is lower than 99.7% of graphics cards.
FP32 performance
0.25 TFLOPS
Market range: <3.94 TFLOPS – >56.3 TFLOPS
This graphics card delivers 0.25 TFLOPS FP32 performance, which is lower than that of 99.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
What reviewers say
VRAM
2 GB
Market range: <4 GB – >16 GB
This graphics card has 2 GB of VRAM, which is less than 94.3% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Memory type
GDDR3
This graphics card uses GDDR3 memory, which is older than on 98.7% 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
36.8 GB/s
Market range: <168 GB/s – >960 GB/s
This graphics card reaches 36.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, which is lower than that of 98.6% of graphics cards.
Effective memory speed
4,600 MHz
Market range: <7k MHz – >28k MHz
This graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 4,600 MHz, which is slower than that of 96.9% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.1% of graphics cards.
Show more
PCI Express (PCIe) version
3
This graphics card supports PCIe 3, which is older than on 77.6% of graphics cards and equal to 20.1% of graphics cards.
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
1.2
This graphics card supports Vulkan 1.2, which is older than on 94.9% of graphics cards and equal to 3.9% 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
4096x2160
This graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 4096x2160, which is lower than that of 92.4% of graphics cards and equal to that of 4.6% of graphics cards.
DisplayPort outputs
1
Market range: <1 – >3
This graphics card offers 1 DisplayPort outputs, which is fewer than 88.1% of graphics cards and equal to 8.7% of graphics cards.
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
21.6 Gbps
Market range: <5.4 Gbps – >80 Gbps
This graphics card supports DisplayPort link rates up to 21.6 Gbps, which is faster than on 49.7% of graphics cards and equal to 2% 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
200 W
Market range: <450 W – >850 W
This graphics card recommends a 200 W PSU, which is lower than that of 99.7% of graphics cards and equal to that of 0.2% of graphics cards.
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
15 W
Show more
Size
168x 69x 19 mm
Length
?
Height
69 mm
Market range: <109 mm – >146 mm
This graphics card is 69 mm tall, which is shorter than 92.5% of graphics cards and equal in height to 1.6% of graphics cards.
Slot width
1 slot/s
Market range: <2 slot/s – >3.25 slot/s
This graphics card occupies 1 slot/s, which is slimmer than 96.1% of graphics cards and equal in width to 3.9% of graphics cards.
Weight
?
Show more

AMD Radeon R5 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
  • 69.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (200 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    200 W vs 650 W
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (128 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    128 MB vs 24 MB
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 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
  • 11.56x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R5 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£45 vs £520).
    £45 vs £520
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 11.56x cheaper
    AMD Radeon R5 is cheaper than the average graphics card (£45 vs £520).
    £45 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
  • 5.33x larger L2 cache
    This graphics card has more L2 cache than the average graphics card (128 MB vs 24 MB). The average graphics card has 24 MB L2 cache.
    128 MB vs 24 MB
  • 2 more GPUs supported
    This graphics card supports more GPUs in multi-GPU mode than the average graphics card (2 vs 0). The average graphics card supports 0 GPUs in multi-GPU mode.
    2 vs 0
  • 1 more DVI outputs
    This graphics card has more DVI outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 0). The average graphics card has 0 DVI outputs.
    1 vs 0
  • 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
  • 69.2% lower PSU requirement
    This graphics card has a lower PSU requirement than the average graphics card (200 W vs 650 W). The average graphics card has a PSU requirement of 650 W.
    200 W vs 650 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
  • 1.5 slot/s slimmer design
    This graphics card occupies fewer slots than the average graphics card (1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s). The average graphics card occupies 2.5 slot/s.
    1 slot/s vs 2.5 slot/s
  • 56 mm lower card height
    This graphics card is shorter than the average graphics card (69 mm vs 125 mm). The average graphics card has a height of 125 mm.
    69 mm vs 125 mm
  • 68.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (780 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    780 MHz vs 2,505 MHz
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 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
  • 60.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (758 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    758 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • Less advanced frame generation
    This graphics card has less advanced frame generation than the average graphics card (no vs multi frame generation).
  • 48.6% lower review score
    Reviews score
    3.7/ 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
    ▼
    <55-66-77-88-99-10
    ▼ Worse than 97% of models

    3.7

    Mark 7.3 is below the typical mark 7.9 of this category, so it cannot lift the score above the technical score

    80%

    7.2

    Average grade

    20%

    8.0

    Popularity

    Grades by review (4)
    4 video reviews, each counting half as much as a written test. Reviews count 25% of the overall score.
    User ratings collected online are not part of this score.
    3.7 vs 7.2
  • 52.6% lower sentiment score
    3.7 vs 7.8
  • 18.6% worse value for money
    AMD Radeon R5 has worse value for money than the average graphics card (6.25 vs 7.4).
    6.25 vs 7.41
  • 68.9% lower boost clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower boost GPU clock than the average graphics card (780 MHz vs 2,505 MHz). The average graphics card has a boost GPU clock of 2,505 MHz.
    780 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
  • 60.5% lower base clock speed
    This graphics card has a lower base GPU clock than the average graphics card (758 MHz vs 1920 MHz). The average graphics card has a base GPU clock of 1920 MHz.
    758 MHz vs 1,920 MHz
  • 168 fewer TMUs
    This graphics card has fewer TMUs than the average graphics card (16 vs 184). The average graphics card has 184 TMUs.
    16 vs 184
  • No CUDA support
    This graphics card does not support CUDA, the average graphics card does.
  • 98.1% lower pixel rate
    This graphics card has a lower pixel rate than the average graphics card (3 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s). The average graphics card has a pixel rate of 161.3 GPixel/s.
    3.03 GPixel/s vs 161.3 GPixel/s
  • 56 fewer ROPs
    This graphics card has fewer ROPs than the average graphics card (8 vs 64). The average graphics card has 64 ROPs.
    8 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
  • 98.9% lower FP32 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP32 performance than the average graphics card (0.3 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP32 performance of 22.6 TFLOPS.
    0.25 TFLOPS vs 22.6 TFLOPS
  • 9 years older
    This graphics card was released earlier than the average graphics card (2014 vs 2023).
    September 2014
    2014 vs 2023
  • 97.3% lower PassMark score
    This graphics card has a lower PassMark score than the average graphics card (600 points vs 22,638 points). The average graphics card has a PassMark score of 22,638 points.
    600 points vs 22,638 points
  • 97.1% lower compute score
    This graphics card has a lower compute score than the average graphics card (350 points vs 12,70.5 points). The average graphics card has a compute score of 12,070.5 points.
    350 points vs 12,070.5 points
  • 97.7% lower FP16 performance
    This graphics card has a lower FP16 performance than the average graphics card (0.7 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS). The average graphics card has FP16 performance of 29.5 TFLOPS.
    0.69 TFLOPS vs 29.5 TFLOPS
  • 3,968 fewer FP32 units
    This graphics card has fewer FP32 units than the average graphics card (384 vs 4,352). The average graphics card has 4,352 FP32 units.
    384 vs 4,352
  • 10 GB less VRAM
    This graphics card has fewer VRAM than the average graphics card (2 GB vs 12 GB). The average graphics card has 12 GB VRAM.
    2 GB vs 12 GB
  • 91.8% lower memory bandwidth
    This graphics card has a lower memory bandwidth than the average graphics card (36.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s). The average graphics card has a memory bandwidth of 448 GB/s.
    36.8 GB/s vs 448 GB/s
  • 75.8% slower memory speed
    This graphics card has a lower effective memory speed than the average graphics card (4,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz). The average graphics card reaches an effective memory speed of 19,000 MHz.
    4,600 MHz vs 19,000 MHz
  • 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 (GDDR3 vs GDDR6).
    GDDR3 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.
  • Older PCIe version
    This graphics card supports an older PCIe version than the average graphics card (3 vs 4).
    3 vs 4
  • 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 (1.2 vs 1.4).
    1.2 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.
  • 89.5% fewer transistors
    This graphics card has fewer transistors than the average graphics card (2,400 million vs 22,900 million). The average graphics card has 22,900 million transistors.
    2,400 million vs 22,900 million
  • Older FSR version
    This graphics card supports an older FSR version than the average graphics card (3 vs 3.1).
    3 vs 3.1
  • Older HDMI version
    This graphics card supports an older HDMI version than the average graphics card (1.3a vs 2.1a).
    1.3a vs 2.1a
  • 2 fewer DisplayPort outputs
    This graphics card has fewer DisplayPort outputs than the average graphics card (1 vs 3). The average graphics card has 3 DisplayPort outputs.
    1 vs 3
  • 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.
  • 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 (4096x2160 vs 7680x4320). The average graphics card supports a maximum digital resolution of 7680x4320.
    4096x2160 vs 7680x4320
  • Not VR ready
    This graphics card is not VR ready, while the average graphics card is.
  • 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.
  • 5 °C lower thermal ceiling
    This graphics card has a lower thermal ceiling than the average graphics card (100 °C vs 95 °C). The average graphics card has a thermal ceiling of 95 °C.
    100 °C vs 95 °C
  • 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

3.0
Budget-Builds Official
≈ estimated
11/12/2024
Hands-on review · display-less card, benchmarks and troubleshooting
Verdict
AMD Radeon R5 cannot output video on its own, so it is not worth buying even at a low price.
7.0
Andy'sTech
≈ estimated
13/12/2021
Retro review · game benchmarks at 720p, low settings
Verdict
AMD Radeon R5 is understated for its price and capable in light esports, ideally the 2GB GDDR5 version.
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Overview video
Overview video
Hands-on video, no verdict
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded
Not graded

Third-party reviews

What customers like about AMD Radeon R5

  • Extremely budget-friendly, often available for under £10 or as a very low-cost entry-level upgrade for older PCs.
  • Highly consistent performance with a very narrow spread between its highest and lowest recorded benchmarks.
  • Supports modern APIs like DirectX 12, allowing it to run newer software despite its age.
  • Low power consumption (typically 15W–65W TDP), making it suitable for compact or older systems with limited power supplies.
  • Reliable for basic tasks such as video streaming on sites like YouTube, Netflix, or Hulu.
  • Handles non-demanding or older games (e.g., CS:GO, Minecraft, GTA 5) reasonably well at 720p resolution and low-to-medium settings.

What customers don't like about AMD Radeon R5

  • Significantly lower performance compared to modern integrated or dedicated graphics; benchmarks show it is nearly 98% slower than market leaders.
  • Struggles with modern, graphics-heavy titles (e.g., Overwatch, Tekken 7) due to low frame rates and frequent lagging.
  • Limited video memory, with many versions only featuring 1GB or 2GB of slower DDR3/GDDR3 VRAM.
  • Often outperformed by newer integrated graphics found in standard CPUs, such as the Intel HD 520 or Radeon Vega series.
  • Poor gaming performance above 720p resolution; higher detail settings or modern AAA games are largely unplayable.
  • Lacks premium features for high-end video streaming and hardware acceleration found in more recent GPUs.

Verdict

The AMD Radeon R5 is an entry-level graphics solution, primarily existing as an integrated GPU within AMD's Kaveri, Beema, and Bristol Ridge APU families, though discrete versions like the R5 240 also exist. Key specifications for common integrated variants include up to 384 shading units, a base clock of roughly 720–800 MHz, and support for modern APIs like DirectX 12, OpenGL 4.4, and Vulkan. Its main strengths are its very low power consumption (typically a 15W TDP) and its ability to handle basic daily tasks like HD video streaming and light web browsing. However, its significant cons include extremely limited performance that struggles with modern AAA titles even at low settings, lack of dedicated VRAM in integrated models (which forces it to share system memory), and an aging architecture that is now largely outperformed by newer integrated solutions like Radeon Vega.

Compare AMD Radeon R5 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 R5 and other products in the Graphics cards category

No results found