ATI Radeon 9200 vs GeForce GT 820M

Place in the ranking	992	1520
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	6.74	0.02
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code name	GF117	RV280
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	27 November 2013 (11 years ago)	1 May 2003 (21 year 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	no data
Core clock speed	775 MHz	250 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	36 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.40	1.000
Floating-point processing power	0.2976 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	AGP 8x
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	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	128 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	200 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	6.4 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 Connectors

No outputs

1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	8.1
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	1.4
OpenCL	1.1	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	2.1	-

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.

GT 820M 1.45
+14400%

ATI 9200 0.01

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.

GT 820M 559
+18533%

ATI 9200 3

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.45	0.01
Recency	27 November 2013	1 May 2003
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	128 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	28 Watt

GT 820M has a 14400% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 435.7% more advanced lithography process, and 86.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 820M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9200 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 820M is a notebook card while Radeon 9200 is a desktop one.

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