GeForce 9200M GS vs Radeon R5 230

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 230 with GeForce 9200M GS, including specs and performance data.

R5 230
2014
4 GB DDR3, 19 Watt
0.48
+54.8%

R5 230 outperforms 9200M GS by an impressive 55% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13041384
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.951.84
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameCaicosG98
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date3 April 2014 (12 years ago)3 June 2008 (17 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 cores1608
Core clock speedno data550 MHz
Number of transistors370 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate5.0004.400
Floating-point processing power0.2 TFLOPS0.0224 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data31
ROPs44
TMUs88
L1 Cache16 KBno data
L2 Cache128 KB16 KB

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).

Bus supportPCIe 1.0 x4no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano 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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data700 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s11.2 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

CrossFire+-
​PowerPlay+no data
DDMA audio-no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1111.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.04.0
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-+

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.

R5 230 0.48
+54.8%
9200M GS 0.31

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.

R5 230 201
+55.8%
Samples: 7
9200M GS 129
Samples: 199

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%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

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

1440p
Ultra

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

4K
High

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

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 26 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.48 0.31
Recency 3 April 2014 3 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 13 Watt

R5 230 has a 55% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 63% more advanced lithography process.

9200M GS, on the other hand, has 46% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 230 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9200M GS in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 230 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 9200M GS is a notebook one.

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.


2.8 269 votes

Rate Radeon R5 230 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 29 votes

Rate GeForce 9200M GS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 230 or GeForce 9200M GS, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.