NVS 4200M vs ATI FirePro M5800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M5800 and NVS 4200M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ATI M5800 outperforms NVS 4200M by an impressive 88% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1015 | 1171 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.77 | 2.09 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Madison | GF119 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2010 (15 years ago) | 22 February 2011 (14 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 | 400 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 627 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 25 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.00 | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.52 TFLOPS | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 20 | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 2.1 |
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.
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 HD | 21
+61.5%
| 13
−61.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+17.2%
|
27−30
−17.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+50%
|
20−22
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+17.2%
|
27−30
−17.2%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+17.2%
|
27−30
−17.2%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how ATI M5800 and NVS 4200M compete in popular games:
- ATI M5800 is 62% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI M5800 is 167% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI M5800 is ahead in 31 test (89%)
- there's a draw in 4 tests (11%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 0.66 |
| Recency | 1 March 2010 | 22 February 2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 25 Watt |
ATI M5800 has a 87.9% higher aggregate performance score.
NVS 4200M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 months, and 4% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M5800 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
