
MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 vs RADEON 9200 SE

MOBILITY/RADEON 9000
Popular choices:

RADEON 9200 SE
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.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9200 SE
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The RADEON 9200 SE is significantly newer (2025 vs 2010). The RADEON 9200 SE likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the RADEON 9200 SE.
| Insight | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON 9200 SE offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $15 versus $49 for the MOBILITY/RADEON 9000, it costs 69% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 145% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+145%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($49) | ✅More affordable ($15) |
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 MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 and RADEON 9200 SE

MOBILITY/RADEON 9000
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 7 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 700 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.

RADEON 9200 SE
The RADEON 9200 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 3 — the MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 leads by 33.3%. The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 is built on TeraScale 2 while the RADEON 9200 SE uses RDNA 3.5, both on 40 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 800 (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE). Raw compute: 1.12 TFLOPS (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE).
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4+33% | 3 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | RDNA 3.5 |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 800 | 2560+220% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.12 TFLOPS | 14.85 TFLOPS+1226% |
| ROPs | 16 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 40 | 160+300% |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 8 MB+3100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9200 SE has 256 MB. The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.25 MB (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 8 MB (RADEON 9200 SE) — the RADEON 9200 SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+100% | 0.25 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.25 MB | 8 MB+3100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 8.1 (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 8.1 (RADEON 9200 SE). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 1.4 vs 1.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 8.1 | 8.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| OpenGL | 1.4+8% | 1.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: N/A (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs None (RADEON 9200 SE). Decoder: MPEG-2 vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs MPEG-2 (RADEON 9200 SE).
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | N/A | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 draws 10W versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 55W — a 138.5% difference. The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 0W (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 350W (RADEON 9200 SE). Power connectors: None vs Legacy. Card length: 0mm vs 168mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70 vs 60.
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-82% | 55W |
| Recommended PSU | 0W-100% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | Legacy |
| Length | 0mm | 168mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 70 | 60-14% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.4+300% | 0.1 |
Value Analysis
The MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 launched at $0 MSRP and currently averages $49, while the RADEON 9200 SE launched at $30 and now averages $15. The RADEON 9200 SE costs 69.4% less ($34 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.1 (MOBILITY/RADEON 9000) vs 0.2 (RADEON 9200 SE) — the RADEON 9200 SE offers 100% better value. The RADEON 9200 SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2010).
| Feature | MOBILITY/RADEON 9000 | RADEON 9200 SE |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $0-100% | $30 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $49 | $15-69% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.1 | 0.2+100% |
| Codename | Broadway | Strix Halo |
| Release | January 7 2010 | January 6 2025 |
| Ranking | #846 | #98 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















