GeForce FX Go 5200 vs Radeon HD 8210
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8210 and GeForce FX Go 5200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 8210 outperforms FX Go 5200 by a whopping 2300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1247 | 1498 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.21 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | no data |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | NV31M |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 31 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 1 March 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 | 128 | 5 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 1 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 150 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 2.400 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0768 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | 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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | IGP | no data |
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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 32 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 300 MHz |
| 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 data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | DDR |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 5 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+16.7%
|
24−27
−16.7%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8210 is 200% faster.
- in Dota 2, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the FX Go 5200 is 60% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8210 is ahead in 21 test (70%)
- FX Go 5200 is ahead in 2 tests (7%)
- there's a draw in 7 tests (23%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.48 | 0.02 |
| Recency | 31 January 2014 | 1 March 2003 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 150 nm |
HD 8210 has a 2300% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 8210 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX Go 5200 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
