ATI Radeon 9600 vs HD 8210

Place in the ranking	1239	1458
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	4.22	0.52
Architecture	GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)	Rage 8 (2002−2007)
GPU code name	Kalindi	RV350
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	31 January 2014 (10 years ago)	1 October 2003 (21 year 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	128	no data
Core clock speed	300 MHz	324 MHz
Number of transistors	1,178 million	60 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	8 Watt	12 Watt
Texture fill rate	2.400	1.296
Floating-point processing power	0.0768 TFLOPS	no data
ROPs	4	4
TMUs	8	4

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).

Interface	IGP	AGP 8x
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	System Shared	DDR
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	64 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	189 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	6.048 GB/s
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

1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	9.0 (9_0)
Shader Model	6.3	no data
OpenGL	4.6	2.0
OpenCL	2.0	N/A
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

HD 8210 0.49
+444%

ATI 9600 0.09

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.

HD 8210 190
+443%

ATI 9600 35

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

0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6	0−1
World of Tanks	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	5	0−1
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4	0−1
World of Tanks	1−2	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Valorant	5−6	0−1

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Dota 2	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Valorant	1−2	0−1

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.49	0.09
Recency	31 January 2014	1 October 2003
Chip lithography	28 nm	130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	8 Watt	12 Watt

HD 8210 has a 444.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 8210 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 9600 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 8210 is a notebook card while Radeon 9600 is a desktop one.

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