SIS Mirage 3+ 672MX vs GeForce 8200M G
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| GPU code name | MCP77MV MCP79MVL | SISM672 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 1 January 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 cores | 8 | 3 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 250 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | no 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.
| Shared memory | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 1 January 2007 |
8200M G has an age advantage of 1 year.
We couldn't decide between GeForce 8200M G and SIS Mirage 3+ 672MX. 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
