Radeon HD 8250 vs GeForce 210
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 210 with Radeon HD 8250, including specs and performance data.
HD 8250 outperforms 210 by an impressive 51% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1375 | 1305 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.88 | 5.16 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | GT218S | Kalindi |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 October 2009 (16 years ago) | 23 May 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $29.49 | no data |
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 cores | 16 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 589 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30.5 Watt | 8 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 4.160 | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03936 TFLOPS | 0.1024 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 8 | 8 |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | no data |
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).
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.731" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 type | GDDR2 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 8.0 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 Connectors | DVIVGADisplayPort | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 3.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| Valorant | 27−30 | 27−30 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18 | 16−18 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Valorant | 27−30 | 27−30 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12 | 10−12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5 | 4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9 | 8−9 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7 | 6−7 |
| Valorant | 27−30 | 27−30 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3 | 2−3 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7 | 6−7 |
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 1−2 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 1−2 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 14−16 |
| Valorant | 6−7 | 6−7 |
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2 | 1−2 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 2−3 |
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 30 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.35 | 0.53 |
| Recency | 12 October 2009 | 23 May 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 8 Watt |
HD 8250 has a 51% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 30% more advanced lithography process, and 73% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 8250 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 210 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 210 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 8250 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
