NVS 4200M vs Radeon R5 (Kaveri)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Kaveri) with NVS 4200M, including specs and performance data.
R5 (Kaveri) outperforms 4200M by an impressive 51% 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 | 1124 | 1222 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.28 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri | GF119 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2014 (11 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (15 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 cores | 256 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 514 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 626 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | MXM |
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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 18−20
+38.5%
| 13
−38.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.3%
|
27−30
−10.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+28.6%
|
21−24
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.3%
|
27−30
−10.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+10.3%
|
27−30
−10.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R5 (Kaveri) and NVS 4200M compete in popular games:
- R5 (Kaveri) is 38% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Far Cry 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 (Kaveri) is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Kaveri) performs better in 21 tests (66%)
- there's a draw in 11 tests (34%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.12 | 0.74 |
| Recency | 4 June 2014 | 22 February 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R5 (Kaveri) has a 51% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 (Kaveri) is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 (Kaveri) is a notebook graphics card while NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
