AMD Radeon 625 vs NVIDIA GeForce 210
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon 625 and NVIDIA GeForce 210 videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon 625
- Videocard is newer: launch date 9 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- 5908.7x more texture fill rate: 24.58 GTexel/s vs 4.16 GTexel / s
- 24x more pipelines: 384 vs 16
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 2 GB vs 512 MB
- Around 80% higher memory clock speed: 900 MHz (1800 MHz effective) vs 500 MHz
- 9.8x better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 1082 vs 110
- 6.6x better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 212 vs 32
- 2.7x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6656 vs 2438
- 5.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2920 vs 497
- 4.7x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3215 vs 688
- 5.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2920 vs 497
- 4.7x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3215 vs 688
Specifications (specs) | |
Launch date | 13 May 2019 vs 12 October 2009 |
Texture fill rate | 24.58 GTexel/s vs 4.16 GTexel / s |
Pipelines | 384 vs 16 |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
Maximum memory size | 2 GB vs 512 MB |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz (1800 MHz effective) vs 500 MHz |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1082 vs 110 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 212 vs 32 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6656 vs 2438 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2920 vs 497 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3215 vs 688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2920 vs 497 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3215 vs 688 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 210
- Around 92% higher core clock speed: 1402 MHz vs 730 MHz
- Around 61% lower typical power consumption: 30.5 Watt vs 50 Watt
Core clock speed | 1402 MHz vs 730 MHz |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30.5 Watt vs 50 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon 625
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 210
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon 625 | NVIDIA GeForce 210 |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 1082 | 110 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 212 | 32 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 6656 | 2438 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 18.876 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 322.556 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.478 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 32.22 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 70.423 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 2032 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2920 | 497 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3215 | 688 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 2032 | |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2920 | 497 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3215 | 688 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon 625 | NVIDIA GeForce 210 | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
Code name | Polaris 24 | GT218 |
Launch date | 13 May 2019 | 12 October 2009 |
Place in performance rating | 1133 | 1654 |
Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Launch price (MSRP) | $29.49 | |
Price now | $32.99 | |
Value for money (0-100) | 6.81 | |
Technical info |
||
Boost clock speed | 1024 MHz | |
Compute units | 6 | |
Core clock speed | 730 MHz | 1402 MHz |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
Peak Double Precision (FP64) Performance | 49.15 GFLOPS (1:16) | |
Peak Half Precision (FP16) Performance | 786.4 GFLOPS (1:1) | |
Peak Single Precision (FP32) Performance | 786.4 GFLOPS | |
Pipelines | 384 | 16 |
Pixel fill rate | 8.192 GPixel/s | |
Texture fill rate | 24.58 GTexel/s | 4.16 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 50 Watt | 30.5 Watt |
CUDA cores | 16 | |
Floating-point performance | 39.36 gflops | |
Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
Transistor count | 260 million | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort, 1x VGA, DVIVGADisplayPort |
Audio input for HDMI | Internal | |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
Width | IGP | |
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
Height | 2.731" (6.9 cm) | |
Length | 6.60" (16.8 cm) | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 12 | 10.1 |
OpenCL | 2.0 | |
OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.1 |
Shader Model | 6.3 | |
Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 512 MB |
Memory bandwidth | 14.40 GB/s | 8.0 GB / s |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 900 MHz (1800 MHz effective) | 500 MHz |
Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR2 |
Technologies |
||
CUDA |