ATI Radeon X800 vs ION 2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared ION 2 with Radeon X800, including specs and performance data.
ION 2 outperforms X800 by an impressive 50% 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 | 1404 | 1467 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.16 | 0.52 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | R400 (2004−2008) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | R430 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (18 years ago) | 1 October 2004 (21 years ago) |
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 160 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.000 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03424 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 12 |
| TMUs | 8 | 12 |
| 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 350 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | no data |
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 | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 9.0b (9_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 1.2 | - |
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+56.3%
|
16−18
−56.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.30 | 0.20 |
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 1 October 2004 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 30 Watt |
ION 2 has a 50% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 175% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.
The ION 2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X800 in performance tests.
Be aware that ION 2 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon X800 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
