GeForce 6200 TurboCache vs Radeon R7 (Carrizo)

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 (Carrizo) with GeForce 6200 TurboCache, including specs and performance data.

R7 (Carrizo)
2015
12 Watt
1.81
+1408%

R7 (Carrizo) outperforms 6200 TurboCache by a whopping 1408% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9711501
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.98no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameCarrizoNV44 B2
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date4 June 2015 (11 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores512no data
Core clock speedno data350 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistors2410 Million75 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-35 Wattno data
Texture fill rateno data1.400
ROPsno data2
TMUsno data4

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataAGP 4x
Lengthno data165 mm
Widthno data1-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 typeno dataDDR
Maximum RAM amountno data64 MB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data250 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 data1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.1
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD100−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Resident Evil 4 Remake 1−2 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Fortnite 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Fortnite 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4 0−1
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+1800%
2−3
−1800%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 8−9 0−1

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Valorant 12−14 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Valorant 9−10 0−1

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.81 0.12
Recency 4 June 2015 15 December 2004
Chip lithography 28 nm 110 nm

R7 (Carrizo) has a 1408% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 293% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 6200 TurboCache in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 6200 TurboCache 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.

Community ratings

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


3.4 7 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Carrizo) 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 R7 (Carrizo) or GeForce 6200 TurboCache, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.