GeForce 8200 vs ATI Radeon X1650 PRO

Place in the ranking	1374	1253
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	0.35	0.70
Architecture	Ultra-Threaded SE (2005−2007)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	RV530	C78
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	1 February 2007 (17 years ago)	17 April 2007 (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 cores	no data	16
Core clock speed	600 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	157 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	90 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	44 Watt	40 Watt
Texture fill rate	2.400	4.000
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.0384 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	4
TMUs	4	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 1.0 x16	PCI
Width	1-slot	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	GDDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	22.4 GB/s	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 DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	9.0c (9_3)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	3.0	4.0
OpenGL	2.1	3.3
OpenCL	N/A	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

ATI X1650 PRO 0.22

GeForce 8200 0.40
+81.8%

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.

ATI X1650 PRO 84

GeForce 8200 155
+84.5%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.22	0.40
Recency	1 February 2007	17 April 2007
Chip lithography	90 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	44 Watt	40 Watt

GeForce 8200 has a 81.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, a 12.5% more advanced lithography process, and 10% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 8200 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1650 PRO in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.