GeForce 8200 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 560v
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 560v with GeForce 8200, including specs and performance data.
Mobility HD 560v outperforms 8200 by a whopping 108% 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 | 1202 | 1337 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.16 | 0.75 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | M96 | C78 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 May 2010 (15 years ago) | 6 May 2008 (17 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 | 320 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 514 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.60 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.352 TFLOPS | 0.0384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCI |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+120%
|
10−11
−120%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
+114%
|
14−16
−114%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.81 | 0.39 |
| Recency | 5 May 2010 | 6 May 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 40 Watt |
ATI Mobility HD 560v has a 108% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 45% more advanced lithography process, and 167% lower power consumption.
The Mobility Radeon HD 560v is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8200 in performance tests.
Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 560v is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 8200 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
