CPU
GPU
GeForce G200
Popular choices:
GeForce 210
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce G200 is positioned at rank 357 and the GeForce 210 is on rank 599, so the GeForce G200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce G200
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 210
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce 210 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce 210 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce G200 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 210 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1.5% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce G200.
| Insight | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 210 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $5 versus $15 for the GeForce G200, it costs 67% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 204.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+204.4%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($15) | ✅More affordable ($5) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce G200 and GeForce 210
GeForce G200
The GeForce G200 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1228 MHz to 1468 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 136 points. Launch price was $79.
GeForce 210
The GeForce 210 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 138 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce G200 scores 136 and the GeForce 210 reaches 138 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce G200 is built on Pascal while the GeForce 210 uses Pascal, both on a 14 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce G200) vs 384 (GeForce 210). Raw compute: 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce G200) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 210). Boost clocks: 1468 MHz vs 1038 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 136 | 138+1% |
| Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.127 TFLOPS+41% | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz+41% | 1038 MHz |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce G200 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce 210 has 1 GB. The GeForce 210 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce G200) vs 10.1 (GeForce 210). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce G200) vs None (GeForce 210). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP4) vs PureVideo VP4. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce G200) vs MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264 (GeForce 210).
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP4) | PureVideo VP4 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | MPEG-2,VC-1,H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce G200 draws 30W versus the GeForce 210's 10W — a 100% difference. The GeForce 210 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce G200) vs 350W (GeForce 210). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Card length: 168mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 75°C.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W | 10W-67% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 168mm | 168mm |
| Height | 111mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 4.5 | 13.8+207% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce G200 launched at $299 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the GeForce 210 launched at $50 and now averages $5. The GeForce 210 costs 66.7% less ($10 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.1 (GeForce G200) vs 27.6 (GeForce 210) — the GeForce 210 offers 203.3% better value. The GeForce 210 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce G200 | GeForce 210 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $299 | $50-83% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15 | $5-67% |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.1 | 27.6+203% |
| Codename | GP108 | GP108B |
| Release | May 17 2017 | February 20 2019 |
| Ranking | #641 | #643 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce G200 and GeForce 210
