Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling vs GeForce 8200

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1254not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.69no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameC78Vega 10
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date17 April 2007 (17 years ago)7 August 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$699

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 cores164096
Core clock speed500 MHz1408 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1668 MHz
Number of transistors210 million12,500 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)40 Watt345 Watt
Texture fill rate4.000427.0
Floating-point processing power0.0384 TFLOPS13.66 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8256

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).

InterfacePCIPCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data282 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 8-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 typeSystem SharedHBM2
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared8 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared2048 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared945 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data483.8 GB/s

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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.1.125

Pros & cons summary


Recency 17 April 2007 7 August 2017
Chip lithography 80 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 40 Watt 345 Watt

GeForce 8200 has 762.5% lower power consumption.

RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 8200 and Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling. We've got no test results to judge.


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

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 8200
GeForce 8200
AMD Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling
Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.7 61 vote

Rate GeForce 8200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.6 24 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.