GeForce4 Go 4200 vs Radeon PRO W7500

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking121not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation100.00no data
Power efficiency37.27no data
ArchitectureRDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)Kelvin (2001−2003)
GPU code nameNavi 33NV28 A1
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date3 August 2023 (1 year ago)14 November 2002 (22 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$429 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores1792no data
Core clock speed1500 MHz200 MHz
Boost clock speed1700 MHzno data
Number of transistors13,300 million36 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)70 Wattno data
Texture fill rate190.41.600
Floating-point processing power12.19 TFLOPSno data
ROPs644
TMUs1128
Ray Tracing Cores28no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8AGP 8x
Length216 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
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 typeGDDR6DDR
Maximum RAM amount8 GB64 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1344 MHz200 MHz
Memory bandwidth172.0 GB/s3.2 GB/s

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 Connectors4x DisplayPort 2.1No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)8.1
Shader Model6.7no data
OpenGL4.61.3
OpenCL2.2N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 3 August 2023 14 November 2002
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 64 MB
Chip lithography 6 nm 150 nm

PRO W7500 has an age advantage of 20 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2400% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon PRO W7500 and GeForce4 Go 4200. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon PRO W7500 is a workstation card while GeForce4 Go 4200 is a notebook one.


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 PRO W7500
Radeon PRO W7500
NVIDIA GeForce4 Go 4200
GeForce4 Go 4200

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.


4.1 17 votes

Rate Radeon PRO W7500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate GeForce4 Go 4200 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.