GeForce2 MX vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) with GeForce2 MX, including specs and performance data.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
9.01
+90000%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GeForce2 MX by a whopping 90000% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4911533
Place by popularity28not in top-100
Power efficiency41.43no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Celsius (1999−2005)
GPU code nameVegaNV11 A2
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2020 (5 years ago)28 June 2000 (24 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 cores512no data
Core clock speedno data175 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data20 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rateno data0.7
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).

Interfaceno dataAGP 4x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 dataSDR
Maximum RAM amountno data32 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data166 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data2.656 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 Connectorsno data1x VGA

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_17.0
OpenGLno data1.2
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 HD23-0−1
1440p17-0−1
4K9-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 19 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 15 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 32 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 21 0−1
Metro Exodus 27 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 33 0−1
Valorant 44 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 11 0−1
Dota 2 29 0−1
Far Cry 5 30 0−1
Fortnite 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 27 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 13 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 19 0−1
Metro Exodus 19 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 57 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1
Valorant 14 0−1
World of Tanks 48 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 18−20 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 9 0−1
Dota 2 48 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 23 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75 0−1
Valorant 37 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 22 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
World of Tanks 21 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 12−14 0−1
Metro Exodus 17 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1
Valorant 39 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14 0−1
Dota 2 10 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10 0−1
Metro Exodus 6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 13 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 18 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Fortnite 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 6−7 0−1
Valorant 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.01 0.01
Recency 7 January 2020 28 June 2000
Chip lithography 7 nm 180 nm

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 90000% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 19 years, and a 2471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce2 MX in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce2 MX is a desktop 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 RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
NVIDIA GeForce2 MX
GeForce2 MX

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.


3.8 1277 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 17 votes

Rate GeForce2 MX 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.