GeForce 8200M G vs NVS 510

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 510 with GeForce 8200M G, including specs and performance data.

NVS 510
2012, $449
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.62
+913%

NVS 510 outperforms 8200M G by a whopping 913% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10121504
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.04no data
Power efficiency3.58no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)no data
GPU code nameGK107MCP77MV MCP79MVL
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date23 October 2012 (13 years ago)3 June 2008 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

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 cores1928
Core clock speed797 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Wattno data
Texture fill rate12.75no data
Floating-point processing power0.306 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs16no data
L1 Cache16 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length160 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed891 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortno data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)10
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.1.126-
CUDA3.0-

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.

NVS 510 1.62
+913%
8200M G 0.16

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.

NVS 510 676
+940%
Samples: 388
8200M G 65
Samples: 366

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 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 24 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.62 0.16
Recency 23 October 2012 3 June 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 80 nm

NVS 510 has a 913% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 186% more advanced lithography process.

The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8200M G in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 510 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 8200M G 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.

Community ratings

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


3 79 votes

Rate NVS 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 41 votes

Rate GeForce 8200M G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 510 or GeForce 8200M G, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.