ATI Radeon HD 4200 vs GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile with Radeon HD 4200, including specs and performance data.

GTX 1650 Mobile
2020
4 GB GDDR6, 50 Watt
18.51
+6283%

GTX 1650 Mobile outperforms ATI HD 4200 by a whopping 6283% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking3021341
Place by popularity68not in top-100
Power efficiency25.48no data
ArchitectureTuring (2018−2022)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameTU117RS880
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 April 2020 (4 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 cores102440
Core clock speed1380 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1560 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,700 million181 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Wattno data
Texture fill rate99.842.000
Floating-point processing power3.195 TFLOPS0.04 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs644

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1500 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth192.0 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)10.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.54.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.0
Vulkan1.2.140N/A
CUDA7.5-

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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 18.51
+6283%
ATI HD 4200 0.29

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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 7116
+6311%
ATI HD 4200 111

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.

GTX 1650 Mobile 31311
+13167%
ATI HD 4200 236

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 HD590−1
1440p360−1
4K23-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 38
+375%
8−9
−375%
Cyberpunk 2077 52
+2500%
2−3
−2500%
Elden Ring 47 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 66
+6500%
1−2
−6500%
Counter-Strike 2 33
+313%
8−9
−313%
Cyberpunk 2077 35
+1650%
2−3
−1650%
Forza Horizon 4 79
+1480%
5−6
−1480%
Metro Exodus 55 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 71
+1675%
4−5
−1675%
Valorant 83
+8200%
1−2
−8200%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 72
+7100%
1−2
−7100%
Counter-Strike 2 27
+238%
8−9
−238%
Cyberpunk 2077 28
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Dota 2 72
+7100%
1−2
−7100%
Elden Ring 65
+6400%
1−2
−6400%
Far Cry 5 62
+933%
6−7
−933%
Fortnite 95−100
+9800%
1−2
−9800%
Forza Horizon 4 64
+1180%
5−6
−1180%
Grand Theft Auto V 59 0−1
Metro Exodus 40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 165
+2650%
6−7
−2650%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27
+575%
4−5
−575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+1060%
5−6
−1060%
Valorant 47 0−1
World of Tanks 130
+983%
12−14
−983%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 56 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+313%
8−9
−313%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Dota 2 89
+8800%
1−2
−8800%
Far Cry 5 73
+1117%
6−7
−1117%
Forza Horizon 4 55
+1000%
5−6
−1000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130
+2017%
6−7
−2017%
Valorant 75−80
+7400%
1−2
−7400%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 27−30 0−1
Elden Ring 30−33 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+8250%
2−3
−8250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18 0−1
World of Tanks 120−130
+12600%
1−2
−12600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 37 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+650%
2−3
−650%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50 0−1
Metro Exodus 39 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Valorant 45−50
+1075%
4−5
−1075%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Dota 2 30−35
+107%
14−16
−107%
Elden Ring 12−14 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+107%
14−16
−107%
Metro Exodus 12 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 47
+4600%
1−2
−4600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+107%
14−16
−107%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 17 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 45
+200%
14−16
−200%
Far Cry 5 24−27 0−1
Fortnite 23 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 27−30 0−1
Valorant 21−24 0−1

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 Mobile is 8250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, GTX 1650 Mobile surpassed ATI HD 4200 in all 31 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 18.51 0.29
Recency 15 April 2020 1 August 2009
Chip lithography 12 nm 55 nm

GTX 1650 Mobile has a 6282.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 358.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4200 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile 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.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile
ATI Radeon HD 4200
Radeon HD 4200

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4 3369 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 274 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.