Radeon Graphics vs ATI 9200

VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated892
Place by popularitynot in top-10010
Power efficiencyno data9.14
ArchitectureRage 7 (2001−2006)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameRV280Renoir
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 May 2003 (21 year ago)no data (2024 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 coresno data448
Core clock speed250 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1500 MHz
Number of transistors36 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology150 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate1.00042.00
Floating-point processing powerno data1.344 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs428

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).

InterfaceAGP 8xIGP
Width1-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDRSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amount128 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed200 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX8.112 (12_1)
OpenGL1.44.6
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

ATI 9200 3
Radeon Graphics 764
+25367%

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 150 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 15 Watt

Graphics has a 2042.9% more advanced lithography process, and 86.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon 9200 and Radeon Graphics. We've got no test results to judge.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


ATI Radeon 9200
Radeon 9200
AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


4.2 48 votes

Rate Radeon 9200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6118 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.