Radeon HD 8210 vs GeForce 9800M GT SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800M GT SLI and Radeon HD 8210, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
9800M GT SLI outperforms HD 8210 by a whopping 307% 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 | 901 | 1256 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.07 | 4.27 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | NB9E-GT2 | Kalindi |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 July 2008 (16 years ago) | 31 January 2014 (11 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 | 192 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 1,178 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 8 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 2.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0768 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | IGP |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 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 | 18−21
+260%
| 5
−260%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+40.7%
|
27−30
−40.7%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5
−320%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+40.7%
|
27−30
−40.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5
−320%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+40.7%
|
27−30
−40.7%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how 9800M GT SLI and HD 8210 compete in popular games:
- 9800M GT SLI is 260% 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 9800M GT SLI is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- 9800M GT SLI is ahead in 29 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.75 | 0.43 |
| Recency | 15 July 2008 | 31 January 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 8 Watt |
9800M GT SLI has a 307% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 8210, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 1525% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 9800M GT SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8210 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.
