GeForce 6200 TurboCache vs Radeon HD 8240

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8240 and GeForce 6200 TurboCache, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 8240
2013
15 Watt
0.59
+392%

HD 8240 outperforms 6200 TurboCache by a whopping 392% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12691501
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.03no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameKalindiNV44 B2
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 November 2013 (12 years ago)15 December 2004 (21 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 cores128no data
Core clock speed400 MHz350 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million75 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate3.2001.400
Floating-point processing power0.1024 TFLOPSno data
ROPs42
TMUs84

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).

InterfaceIGPAGP 4x
Lengthno data165 mm
WidthIGP1-slot

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 typeSystem SharedDDR
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared64 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data4 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.33.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

HD 8240 0.59
+392%
6200 TurboCache 0.12

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.

HD 8240 246
+373%
Samples: 203
6200 TurboCache 52
Samples: 259

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Valorant 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Valorant 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Valorant 27−30
+460%
5−6
−460%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 1−2 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Valorant 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.59 0.12
Recency 1 November 2013 15 December 2004
Chip lithography 28 nm 110 nm

HD 8240 has a 392% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 293% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon HD 8240 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 6200 TurboCache 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.

Community ratings

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


2.3 43 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8240 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 61 votes

Rate GeForce 6200 TurboCache on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon HD 8240 or GeForce 6200 TurboCache, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.