NVS 4200M vs Radeon HD 8330

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 8330 with NVS 4200M, including specs and performance data.

HD 8330
2013
15 Watt
0.69

NVS 4200M outperforms HD 8330 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11741158
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.152.06
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameKalindiGF119
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date13 August 2013 (11 years ago)22 February 2011 (13 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 cores12848
Core clock speed497 MHz810 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate3.9766.480
Floating-point processing power0.1272 TFLOPS0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs88

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfaceIGPMXM
WidthIGPno 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 typeSystem SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 GB/s
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_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-2.1

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.

HD 8330 0.69
NVS 4200M 0.75
+8.7%

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 8330 266
NVS 4200M 288
+8.3%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

HD 8330 530
+4.5%
NVS 4200M 507

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.

HD 8330 1813
NVS 4200M 2298
+26.8%

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 HD10
−30%
13
+30%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−3.3%
30−35
+3.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

This is how HD 8330 and NVS 4200M compete in popular games:

  • NVS 4200M is 30% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the NVS 4200M is 3% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • NVS 4200M is ahead in 3 tests (9%)
  • there's a draw in 32 tests (91%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.69 0.75
Recency 13 August 2013 22 February 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 25 Watt

HD 8330 has an age advantage of 2 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

NVS 4200M, on the other hand, has a 8.7% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 8330 and NVS 4200M.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8330 is a desktop card while NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation 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.


AMD Radeon HD 8330
Radeon HD 8330
NVIDIA NVS 4200M
NVS 4200M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.8 178 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 146 votes

Rate NVS 4200M 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.