Radeon IGP 340M vs Xpress 200M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in performance rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Architectureno dataRage 6 (2000−2007)
GPU code nameRC410RS200
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date18 February 2005 (19 years ago)5 October 2002 (21 year ago)
Current priceno data$184

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores62
Core clock speed2 MHz2 MHz
Boost clock speed350 MHz180 MHz
Number of transistors107 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm180 nm
Texture fill rate0.670.37

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon Xpress 200M and Radeon IGP 340M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16AGP 4x
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amount0 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Shared memory-+

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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0 (9_0)7.0
OpenGL2.01.4
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

ATI Xpress 200M 22
+1000%
ATI IGP 340M 2

Xpress 200M outperforms IGP 340M by 1000% in Passmark.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 18 February 2005 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 130 nm 180 nm

We couldn't decide between Radeon Xpress 200M and Radeon IGP 340M. 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.

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.


ATI Radeon Xpress 200M
Radeon Xpress 200M
ATI Radeon IGP 340M
Radeon IGP 340M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.9 40 votes

Rate Radeon Xpress 200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 2 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 340M 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.