GeForce RTX 5090 D vs Radeon HD 8210
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8210 with GeForce RTX 5090 D, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5090 D outperforms HD 8210 by a whopping 21177% 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 | 1285 | 1 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 9 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 22.19 |
| Power efficiency | 4.48 | 13.26 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | GB202 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 31 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 21760 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2017 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2407 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 92,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 575 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.400 | 1,636.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0768 TFLOPS | 104.8 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 176 |
| TMUs | 8 | 680 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 680 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 170 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 512 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 1.79 TB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
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
−20900%
| 1050−1100
+20900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 2.19 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20900%
|
210−220
+20900%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−21150%
|
850−900
+21150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20900%
|
210−220
+20900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−21150%
|
850−900
+21150%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−21150%
|
850−900
+21150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−20614%
|
1450−1500
+20614%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−21011%
|
5700−5750
+21011%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−21150%
|
3400−3450
+21150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20900%
|
210−220
+20900%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−20900%
|
1050−1100
+20900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−21150%
|
850−900
+21150%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−21150%
|
850−900
+21150%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−20614%
|
1450−1500
+20614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20900%
|
1050−1100
+20900%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−21011%
|
5700−5750
+21011%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−20900%
|
210−220
+20900%
|
| Dota 2 | 5
−20900%
|
1050−1100
+20900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−21150%
|
850−900
+21150%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−21150%
|
850−900
+21150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−20614%
|
1450−1500
+20614%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20900%
|
1050−1100
+20900%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−21011%
|
5700−5750
+21011%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−19900%
|
400−450
+19900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−20900%
|
210−220
+20900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−20900%
|
1050−1100
+20900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−19900%
|
400−450
+19900%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20900%
|
3150−3200
+20900%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−19900%
|
600−650
+19900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−19900%
|
400−450
+19900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−19900%
|
400−450
+19900%
|
This is how HD 8210 and RTX 5090 D compete in popular games:
- RTX 5090 D is 20900% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.47 | 100.00 |
| Recency | 31 January 2014 | 30 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 575 Watt |
HD 8210 has 7087.5% lower power consumption.
RTX 5090 D, on the other hand, has a 21176.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5090 D is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8210 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8210 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5090 D 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.
