ATI Radeon 9200 PRO vs GeForce 840A

Place in the ranking	779	1530
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	6.28	0.02
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code name	GM108	RV280
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	17 March 2014 (10 years ago)	1 May 2003 (21 year 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	384	no data
Core clock speed	1029 MHz	239 MHz
Boost clock speed	1124 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	36 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.98	0.96
Floating-point processing power	0.8632 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	4

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 x8	AGP 8x
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	DDR3	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	128 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1001 MHz	164 MHz
Memory bandwidth	16.02 GB/s	5.248 GB/s

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

1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	8.1
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	1.4
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	5.0	-

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.

GeForce 840A 2.97
+29600%

ATI 9200 PRO 0.01

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.

GeForce 840A 1145
+57150%

ATI 9200 PRO 2

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	2.97	0.01
Recency	17 March 2014	1 May 2003
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	128 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	28 Watt

GeForce 840A has a 29600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 435.7% more advanced lithography process.

ATI 9200 PRO, on the other hand, has 17.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 840A is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9200 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 840A is a notebook card while Radeon 9200 PRO is a desktop one.

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