GeForce 9200M vs Radeon Graphics 320SP

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 5.1 (2018−2022)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameRenoirC79
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date6 January 2020 (4 years ago)15 October 2008 (16 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 cores32016
Core clock speed400 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1400 MHzno data
Number of transistors9,800 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rate28.003.600
Floating-point processing power0.896 TFLOPS0.0384 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs208

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 2.0 x16
WidthIGPIGP

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 January 2020 15 October 2008
Chip lithography 7 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 12 Watt

Graphics 320SP has an age advantage of 11 years, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 9200M, on the other hand, has 25% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon Graphics 320SP and GeForce 9200M. 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.


AMD Radeon Graphics 320SP
Radeon Graphics 320SP
NVIDIA GeForce 9200M
GeForce 9200M

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.


4.3 3 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 320SP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.5 2 votes

Rate GeForce 9200M 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.