Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce 9200M

Place in the ranking	1282	540
Place by popularity	not in top-100	10
Power efficiency	2.14	11.47
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	C79	Cezanne
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 October 2008 (16 years ago)	13 April 2021 (3 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	16	448
Core clock speed	450 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	3.600	53.20
Floating-point processing power	0.0384 TFLOPS	1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	8	28

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	PCIe 2.0 x16	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	System Shared
Memory bus width	System Shared	System Shared
Memory clock speed	System Shared	System Shared
Shared memory	+	+

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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.0	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.2

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	1−2 −2200%	23 +2200%
1440p	1−2 −2400%	25 +2400%
4K	0−1	15

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

16−18

+0%

16−18

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	29 +0%	29 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	18 +0%	18 +0%
Metro Exodus	21 +0%	21 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +0%	27 +0%
Valorant	29 +0%	29 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Dota 2	17 +0%	17 +0%
Far Cry 5	28 +0%	28 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24 +0%	24 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	15 +0%	15 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	46 +0%	46 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	14 +0%	14 +0%
World of Tanks	58 +0%	58 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21 +0%	21 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	12 +0%	12 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	25 +0%	25 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Metro Exodus	10−12 +0%	10−12 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Fortnite	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

This is how GeForce 9200M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:

Vega 7 is 2200% faster in 1080p
Vega 7 is 2400% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 51 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.36	7.22
Recency	15 October 2008	13 April 2021
Chip lithography	65 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	45 Watt

GeForce 9200M has 275% lower power consumption.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 1905.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9200M in performance tests.

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