Radeon AI PRO R9700 vs GeForce 205 OEM

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated27
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data28.55
Power efficiencyno data17.05
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 4.0 (2025−2026)
GPU code nameGT218Navi 48
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date26 November 2009 (16 years ago)23 July 2025 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,299

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores164096
Core clock speed589 MHz1660 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2920 MHz
Number of transistors260 million53,900 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)31 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate4.712747.5
Floating-point processing power0.04486 TFLOPS47.84 TFLOPS
ROPs4128
TMUs8256
Tensor Coresno data128
Ray Tracing Coresno data64
L0 Cacheno data1 MB
L2 Cache32 KB8 MB
L3 Cacheno data64 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 5.0 x16
Length168 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 16-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 typeDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB32 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz2518 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s644.6 GB/s
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x VGA1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.2-
DLSS-+

Pros & cons summary


Recency 26 November 2009 23 July 2025
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 32 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 31 Watt 300 Watt

205 OEM has 90% lower power consumption.

AI PRO R9700, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 15 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 90% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 205 OEM and Radeon AI PRO R9700. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 205 OEM is a desktop graphics card while Radeon AI PRO R9700 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 19 votes

Rate GeForce 205 OEM on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 40 votes

Rate Radeon AI PRO R9700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 205 OEM or Radeon AI PRO R9700, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.