
GeForce G200 vs Quadro NVS 420

GeForce G200
Popular choices:

Quadro NVS 420
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. The GeForce G200 is positioned at rank #357 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce G200
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Quadro NVS 420 uses modern memory architecture. The Quadro NVS 420 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 Quadro NVS 420 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.7% higher G3D Mark score and 700% more VRAM (4 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 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2018 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+700%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce G200 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $20 for the Quadro NVS 420, it costs 25% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 32.4% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce G200 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+32.4%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($20) |
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 Quadro NVS 420

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.

Quadro NVS 420
The Quadro NVS 420 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 21 2018. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1227 MHz to 1647 MHz. It has 2304 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 100W. Manufactured using 16 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 137 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce G200 scores 136 and the Quadro NVS 420 reaches 137 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce G200 is built on Pascal while the Quadro NVS 420 uses Pascal, both on 14 nm vs 16 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce G200) vs 2,304 (Quadro NVS 420). Raw compute: 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce G200) vs 7.589 TFLOPS (Quadro NVS 420). Boost clocks: 1468 MHz vs 1647 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 136 | 137 |
| Architecture | Pascal | Pascal |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 2304+500% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.127 TFLOPS | 7.589 TFLOPS+573% |
| Boost Clock | 1468 MHz | 1647 MHz+12% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 144+500% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 864 KB+500% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce G200 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 Quadro NVS 420 has 4 GB. The Quadro NVS 420 offers 700% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce G200) vs 2 MB (Quadro NVS 420) — the Quadro NVS 420 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 4 GB+700% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce G200) vs 10_0 (Quadro NVS 420). Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 10_0 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 4+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce G200) vs PureVideo HD (Quadro NVS 420). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP4) vs PureVideo HD.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | PureVideo HD |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP4) | PureVideo HD |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | — |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce G200 draws 30W versus the Quadro NVS 420's 100W — a 107.7% difference. The GeForce G200 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce G200) vs 350W (Quadro NVS 420). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 168mm vs 160mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots.
| Feature | GeForce G200 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-70% | 100W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 168mm | 160mm |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 4.5+221% | 1.4 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce G200 launched at $299 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Quadro NVS 420 launched at $0 and now averages $20. The GeForce G200 costs 25% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 9.1 (GeForce G200) vs 6.8 (Quadro NVS 420) — the GeForce G200 offers 33.8% better value. The Quadro NVS 420 is the newer GPU (2018 vs 2017).
| Feature | GeForce G200 | Quadro NVS 420 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $299 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-25% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 9.1+34% | 6.8 |
| Codename | GP108 | GP104 |
| Release | May 17 2017 | February 21 2018 |
| Ranking | #641 | #266 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.











