GeForce 6200 LE vs GT 625M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 625M with GeForce 6200 LE, including specs and performance data.
625M outperforms 6200 LE by a whopping 1338% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1104 | 1532 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.94 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF117 | NV44 A2 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 October 2012 (13 years ago) | 4 April 2005 (20 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $41.24 |
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | Up to 625 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 75 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 10.00 | 0.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 2 |
| TMUs | 16 | 2 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 64 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 32 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 266 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 14.4 GB/s | 2.128 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | Up to 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.15 | 0.08 |
| Recency | 1 October 2012 | 4 April 2005 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 64 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 110 nm |
GT 625M has a 1337.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GT 625M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 6200 LE in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 625M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 6200 LE is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
