GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile vs Radeon HD 8210
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8210 and GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 5050 Mobile outperforms HD 8210 by a whopping 8859% 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 | 1279 | 102 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.36 | 62.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | GB207 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 31 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (recently) |
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 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2235 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2520 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 50 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.400 | 201.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0768 TFLOPS | 12.9 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 224.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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
−7900%
| 400−450
+7900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9700%
|
95−100
+9700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9700%
|
95−100
+9700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3925%
|
160−170
+3925%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2200%
|
160−170
+2200%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−781%
|
230−240
+781%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1547%
|
280−290
+1547%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9700%
|
95−100
+9700%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−7900%
|
400−450
+7900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3925%
|
160−170
+3925%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2200%
|
160−170
+2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2940%
|
150−160
+2940%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−781%
|
230−240
+781%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−9700%
|
95−100
+9700%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−7900%
|
400−450
+7900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3925%
|
160−170
+3925%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2200%
|
160−170
+2200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2940%
|
150−160
+2940%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−8789%
|
2400−2450
+8789%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 100−110 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−29000%
|
290−300
+29000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−7900%
|
400−450
+7900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−12100%
|
120−130
+12100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 110−120 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−557%
|
90−95
+557%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−8333%
|
250−260
+8333%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2850%
|
55−60
+2850%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−2700%
|
55−60
+2700%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Valorant | 260−270
+0%
|
260−270
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
This is how HD 8210 and RTX 5050 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 5050 Mobile is 7900% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5050 Mobile is 29000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5050 Mobile is ahead in 21 tests (38%)
- there's a draw in 35 tests (63%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.46 | 41.21 |
| Recency | 31 January 2014 | 24 June 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 50 Watt |
HD 8210 has 525% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 8858.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8210 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.
