GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER vs Radeon HD 8210E
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8210E with GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER, including specs and performance data.
RTX 4080 SUPER outperforms HD 8210E by a whopping 17704% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1235 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 55 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 37.78 |
| Power efficiency | 3.82 | 19.15 |
| Architecture | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | Kalindi | AD103 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 April 2013 (11 years ago) | 8 January 2024 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 10240 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 45,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 320 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.400 | 816.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0768 TFLOPS | 52.22 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 112 |
| TMUs | 8 | 320 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 80 |
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 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 310 mm |
| Width | no data | 3-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1438 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 736.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
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 HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| HDMI | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.9 |
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.
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.
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 | 1−2
−26000%
| 261
+26000%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 178 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 118 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.83 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.61 |
| 4K | no data | 8.47 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 246
+0%
|
246
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 278
+0%
|
278
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 240
+0%
|
240
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 614
+0%
|
614
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 198
+0%
|
198
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 214
+0%
|
214
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 179
+0%
|
179
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 350−400
+0%
|
350−400
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 161
+0%
|
161
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 568
+0%
|
568
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 179
+0%
|
179
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 188
+0%
|
188
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 190
+0%
|
190
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 527
+0%
|
527
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 210−220
+0%
|
210−220
+0%
|
| Valorant | 550−600
+0%
|
550−600
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 169
+0%
|
169
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 123
+0%
|
123
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 397
+0%
|
397
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 221
+0%
|
221
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 134
+0%
|
134
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 187
+0%
|
187
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 201
+0%
|
201
+0%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
This is how HD 8210E and RTX 4080 SUPER compete in popular games:
- RTX 4080 SUPER is 26000% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 55 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.50 | 89.02 |
| Recency | 23 April 2013 | 8 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 9 Watt | 320 Watt |
HD 8210E has 3455.6% lower power consumption.
RTX 4080 SUPER, on the other hand, has a 17704% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8210E in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8210E is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 4080 SUPER is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
