RTX A2000 Mobile vs NVS 4200M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared NVS 4200M and RTX A2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms NVS 4200M by a whopping 3266% 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 | 1172 | 228 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.09 | 18.32 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (3 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 | 48 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 893 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1358 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 13,250 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 95 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 6.480 | 108.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1555 TFLOPS | 6.953 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
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 | large |
| Interface | MXM | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 176.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
- Other tests
- Passmark
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Vantage Performance
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 13
−500%
| 78
+500%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−4100%
| 42
+4100%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−3700%
| 38
+3700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset - Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3600%
|
74
+3600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−1125%
|
45−50
+1125%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−1125%
|
45−50
+1125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1063%
|
90−95
+1063%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−469%
|
160−170
+469%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 20−22
−1180%
|
250−260
+1180%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50
+2400%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−1015%
|
145
+1015%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−1125%
|
45−50
+1125%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−4300%
|
44
+4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1063%
|
90−95
+1063%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−1500%
|
96
+1500%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−469%
|
160−170
+469%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1950%
|
41
+1950%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−892%
|
129
+892%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1800%
|
95−100
+1800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 4−5
−1125%
|
45−50
+1125%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1063%
|
90−95
+1063%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−733%
|
50
+733%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−469%
|
160−170
+469%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−5533%
|
160−170
+5533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 25 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1225%
|
53
+1225%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3000%
|
60−65
+3000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−1850%
|
35−40
+1850%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−5600%
|
55−60
+5600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−193%
|
44
+193%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−3400%
|
140−150
+3400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−767%
|
26
+767%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1150%
|
24−27
+1150%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+0%
|
96
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 83
+0%
|
83
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+0%
|
20−22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
This is how NVS 4200M and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 500% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 4100% faster in 1440p
- RTX A2000 Mobile is 3700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the RTX A2000 Mobile is 5600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A2000 Mobile is ahead in 35 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 30 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.73 | 24.57 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 12 April 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 95 Watt |
NVS 4200M has 280% lower power consumption.
RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 3265.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M 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.
