GeForce 210 OEM vs Radeon RX Vega 56
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 151 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 24.49 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 11.19 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega 10 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 14 August 2017 (7 years ago) | 4 September 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $399 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 3584 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1156 MHz | 475 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1471 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 12,500 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 31 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 329.5 | 3.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.54 TFLOPS | 0.0352 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 224 | 8 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 168 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | None |
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 | HBM2 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2048 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | 6.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x VGA |
| HDMI | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.125 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.2 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 14 August 2017 | 4 September 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 210 Watt | 31 Watt |
RX Vega 56 has an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
210 OEM, on the other hand, has 577.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 56 and GeForce 210 OEM. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
