ATI Radeon HD 4200 vs GeForce GT 425M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 425M with Radeon HD 4200, including specs and performance data.
GT 425M outperforms ATI HD 4200 by a whopping 369% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1023 | 1341 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.08 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF108 | RS880 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 August 2009 (15 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 | 96 | 40 |
| Core clock speed | 560 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 181 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 8.960 | 2.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.215 TFLOPS | 0.04 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 4 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/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. 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.
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 11
+450%
| 2−3
−450%
|
| Full HD | 16
+433%
| 3−4
−433%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Fortnite | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| World of Tanks | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 425M and ATI HD 4200 compete in popular games:
- GT 425M is 450% faster in 900p
- GT 425M is 433% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 425M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 425M is ahead in 24 tests (77%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (23%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.36 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 1 August 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
GT 425M has a 369% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 425M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4200 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 425M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 4200 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
