Radeon Graphics vs NVS 4200M

Place in the ranking	1164	910
Place by popularity	not in top-100	11
Power efficiency	2.08	9.10
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF119	Renoir
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	22 February 2011 (14 years ago)	no data

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	448
Core clock speed	810 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1500 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	6.480	42.00
Floating-point processing power	0.1555 TFLOPS	1.344 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	8	28

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	MXM	IGP
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	DDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	no data
Shared memory	-	no data

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

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	no data
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	no data
Vulkan	N/A	-
CUDA	2.1	-

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.

NVS 4200M 0.76

Radeon Graphics 1.99
+162%

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.

NVS 4200M 293

Radeon Graphics 764
+161%

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

−131%

30−35
+131%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Valorant	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	20−22 −150%	50−55 +150%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Dota 2	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Valorant	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Dota 2	12−14 −131%	30−33 +131%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −140%	12−14 +140%
Valorant	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	0−1	0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

1−2

−100%

2−3
+100%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Valorant	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3

−150%

5−6
+150%

This is how NVS 4200M and Graphics compete in popular games:

Graphics is 131% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.76	1.99
Chip lithography	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	15 Watt

Graphics has a 161.8% higher aggregate performance score, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon Graphics is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 4200M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 4200M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon Graphics is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

NVS 4200M

Radeon Graphics

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

HD Graphics (Ivy Bridge)

GeForce 9500 GT Rev. 2

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

HD 7470M

UHD Graphics 32EUs (Alder Lake)

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.1 156 votes

Rate NVS 4200M on a scale of 1 to 5:

2.9 6949 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 4200M or Radeon Graphics, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.