GeForce RTX 4060 Ti vs Radeon HD 8210
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8210 with GeForce RTX 4060 Ti, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4060 Ti outperforms HD 8210 by a whopping 11440% 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 | 1326 | 57 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 62 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 79.24 |
| Power efficiency | 4.55 | 26.24 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | AD106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 31 January 2014 (12 years ago) | 18 May 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $399 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 128 | 4352 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2310 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2535 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 22,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 160 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.400 | 344.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0768 TFLOPS | 22.06 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 136 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 136 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 34 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 4.3 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 32 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).
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | no data | 240 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 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 type | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 2250 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 288.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 5
−10900%
| 550−600
+10900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 0.73 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−11150%
|
450−500
+11150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−11150%
|
900−950
+11150%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−11279%
|
3300−3350
+11279%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−11150%
|
1800−1850
+11150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−10900%
|
550−600
+10900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−11150%
|
450−500
+11150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−11150%
|
900−950
+11150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−10733%
|
650−700
+10733%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−11279%
|
3300−3350
+11279%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−10900%
|
550−600
+10900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−11150%
|
450−500
+11150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−11150%
|
900−950
+11150%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−10733%
|
650−700
+10733%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−11279%
|
3300−3350
+11279%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−11400%
|
230−240
+11400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−11400%
|
230−240
+11400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−10900%
|
550−600
+10900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−11233%
|
1700−1750
+11233%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−10900%
|
550−600
+10900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−10900%
|
110−120
+10900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−11400%
|
230−240
+11400%
|
This is how HD 8210 and RTX 4060 Ti compete in popular games:
- RTX 4060 Ti is 10900% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.47 | 54.24 |
| Recency | 31 January 2014 | 18 May 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 160 Watt |
HD 8210 has 1900% lower power consumption.
RTX 4060 Ti, on the other hand, has a 11440% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4060 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8210 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8210 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 4060 Ti 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.
