GeForce 8200M G vs GTX 1650 SUPER
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER with GeForce 8200M G, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1650 SUPER outperforms 8200M G by a whopping 17929% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 214 | 1425 |
| Place by popularity | 48 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.20 | no data |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | no data |
| GPU code name | TU116 | MCP77MV MCP79MVL |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 November 2019 (5 years ago) | 3 June 2008 (16 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 | 1280 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 1530 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1725 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,600 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 138.0 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.416 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 80 | no data |
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 x16 | no data |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 192.0 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Multi Monitor | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 70 | -0−1 |
| 1440p | 36 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 23 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 61
+917%
|
6−7
−917%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 63
+3050%
|
2−3
−3050%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 48
+700%
|
6−7
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 121
+2320%
|
5−6
−2320%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 89 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 84
+2000%
|
4−5
−2000%
|
| Valorant | 115 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 39
+550%
|
6−7
−550%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 38
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Dota 2 | 138 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 151
+2417%
|
6−7
−2417%
|
| Fortnite | 130−140 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 101
+1920%
|
5−6
−1920%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 103 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 61 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+3160%
|
5−6
−3160%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85−90
+2075%
|
4−5
−2075%
|
| Valorant | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 260−270
+2530%
|
10−11
−2530%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35
+483%
|
6−7
−483%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 32
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Dota 2 | 191
+19000%
|
1−2
−19000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+1217%
|
6−7
−1217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 83
+1560%
|
5−6
−1560%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 51 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+3160%
|
5−6
−3160%
|
| Valorant | 100−110 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 45 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+12700%
|
1−2
−12700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 11 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 170−180 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 75−80
+1875%
|
4−5
−1875%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 54 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 55 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+900%
|
4−5
−900%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+1700%
|
4−5
−1700%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 45
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Dota 2 | 80
+433%
|
14−16
−433%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 39 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 35−40 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1650 SUPER is 12700% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the 8200M G is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 1650 SUPER is ahead in 29 tests (94%)
- 8200M G is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 25.24 | 0.14 |
| Recency | 22 November 2019 | 3 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 80 nm |
GTX 1650 SUPER has a 17928.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8200M G in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is a desktop card while GeForce 8200M G is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
