AMD Radeon R7 Graphics vs NVIDIA GeForce 210
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R7 Graphics 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: 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), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score, PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R7 Graphics
- Videocard is newer: launch date 6 year(s) 7 month(s) later
- 4x more texture fill rate: 16.46 GTexel / s vs 4.16 GTexel / s
- 24x more pipelines: 384 vs 16
- 13.4x better floating-point performance: 526.8 gflops vs 39.36 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- 2.1x lower typical power consumption: 15 Watt vs 30.5 Watt
- 9.3x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 22612 vs 2438
- 4.2x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2101 vs 497
- 4.9x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3358 vs 688
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 31 May 2016 vs 12 October 2009 |
| Texture fill rate | 16.46 GTexel / s vs 4.16 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 384 vs 16 |
| Floating-point performance | 526.8 gflops vs 39.36 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt vs 30.5 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22612 vs 2438 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2101 vs 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 vs 688 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 210
- 7x more core clock speed: 1402 MHz vs 200 MHz
- 14.7x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 497 vs 33.9
- 11.5x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 688 vs 60
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Core clock speed | 1402 MHz vs 200 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 497 vs 33.9 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 688 vs 60 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R7 Graphics
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 210
| 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 R7 Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 22612 | 2438 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 15.145 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 206.354 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 1.2 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 24.15 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 85.46 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1979 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2101 | 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3358 | 688 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 33.5 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 33.9 | 497 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 60 | 688 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 1457 | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 126 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 30 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R7 Graphics | NVIDIA GeForce 210 | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | Wani | GT218 |
| Launch date | 31 May 2016 | 12 October 2009 |
| Place in performance rating | 1435 | 1674 |
| Type | Desktop | Desktop |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $29.49 | |
| Price now | $32.99 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 6.81 | |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 758 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 200 MHz | 1402 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 526.8 gflops | 39.36 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 384 | 16 |
| Texture fill rate | 16.46 GTexel / s | 4.16 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 30.5 Watt |
| Transistor count | 2,410 million | 260 million |
| CUDA cores | 16 | |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | |
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 | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
| Height | 2.731" (6.9 cm) | |
| Length | 6.60" (16.8 cm) | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.1 |
Memory |
||
| Memory type | System Shared | GDDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | |
| Memory bandwidth | 8.0 GB / s | |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon R7 Graphics with others
AMDRadeon R7 Graphics vs
ATIRadeon 7200
AMDRadeon R7 Graphics vs
NVIDIAGeForce2 Go
AMDRadeon R7 Graphics vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 720M
AMDRadeon R7 Graphics vs
NVIDIAGeForce 810M
AMDRadeon R7 Graphics vs
AMDRadeon R7 M360
AMDRadeon R7 Graphics vs
IntelHD Graphics 515
