GeForce 8200 vs 705M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 705M with GeForce 8200, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 705M
2013
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.18
+195%

705M outperforms 8200 by a whopping 195% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10761264
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.410.69
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGF119C78
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date27 September 2013 (11 years ago)17 April 2007 (17 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores4816
Core clock speed475 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors292 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate3.8004.000
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS0.0384 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs88

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 supportPCI Express 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCI
Widthno dataIGP
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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Standard memory configurationDDR3no data
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
eDP 1.2 signal supportUp to 2560x1600no data
LVDS signal supportUp to 1920x1200no data
VGA аnalog display supportUp to 2048x1536no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) supportUp to 2560x1600no data
HDMI+-
HDCP content protection+-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI+-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Blu-Ray 3D Support+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 API11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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.

GeForce 705M 1.18
+195%
GeForce 8200 0.40

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.

GeForce 705M 455
+194%
GeForce 8200 155

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 Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Valorant 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+225%
8−9
−225%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Valorant 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Valorant 30−35
+230%
10−11
−230%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Valorant 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+200%
5−6
−200%
Valorant 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 0.40
Recency 27 September 2013 17 April 2007
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 40 Watt

GeForce 705M has a 195% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 166.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 705M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8200 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 705M is a notebook card while GeForce 8200 is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 705M
GeForce 705M
NVIDIA GeForce 8200
GeForce 8200

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.


2.8 16 votes

Rate GeForce 705M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 62 votes

Rate GeForce 8200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 705M or GeForce 8200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.