NVS 4200M vs GeForce 810M

Place in the ranking	1092	1159
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.91	2.07
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GF117	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	24 March 2014 (10 years ago)	22 February 2011 (13 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 cores	48	48
Core clock speed	738 MHz	810 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	585 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	25 Watt
Texture fill rate	5.904	6.480
Floating-point processing power	0.1417 TFLOPS	0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	8	8

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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM

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	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	12.8 GB/s
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 Connectors

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	2.1	2.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 810M 1.07
+42.7%

NVS 4200M 0.75

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 810M 413
+42.4%

NVS 4200M 290

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce 810M 1607
+39.1%

NVS 4200M 1155

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

18−20
+38.5%

−38.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Fortnite	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
World of Tanks	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Valorant	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GeForce 810M and NVS 4200M compete in popular games:

GeForce 810M is 38% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 35 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.07	0.75
Recency	24 March 2014	22 February 2011
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	25 Watt

GeForce 810M has a 42.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 810M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 810M is a notebook graphics card while NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.