GeForce 8200M G mGPU vs GTX 550 Ti
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 693 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 73 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.79 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.42 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | C79 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 March 2011 (13 years ago) | 3 June 2008 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 900 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 100 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 0.0256 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 192 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 4.1 GB/s | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 98.4 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 | Two Dual Link DVI-IMini HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 15 March 2011 | 3 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 116 Watt | 12 Watt |
GTX 550 Ti has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.
8200M G mGPU, on the other hand, has 866.7% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 550 Ti and GeForce 8200M G mGPU Intel. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 550 Ti is a desktop card while GeForce 8200M G mGPU Intel is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
