RADEON 9200 vs GeForce 256
RADEON 9200
Popular choices:
GeForce 256
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 RADEON 9200 is positioned at rank 748 and the GeForce 256 is on rank 750, so the RADEON 9200 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9200
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 256
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 256 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% 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.
| Insight | RADEON 9200 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) (28nm) | 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 |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 256 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $20 versus $25 for the RADEON 9200, it costs 20% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 56.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | RADEON 9200 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+56.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($25) | ✅More affordable ($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 RADEON 9200 and GeForce 256
RADEON 9200
The RADEON 9200 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in May 13 2019. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
GeForce 256
The GeForce 256 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: 5 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON 9200 scores 4 versus the GeForce 256's 5 — the GeForce 256 leads by 25%. The RADEON 9200 is built on GCN 3.0 while the GeForce 256 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 384 (RADEON 9200) vs 384 (GeForce 256). Raw compute: 0.7864 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256). Boost clocks: 1024 MHz vs 1038 MHz.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7864 TFLOPS | 0.7972 TFLOPS+1% |
| Boost Clock | 1024 MHz | 1038 MHz+1% |
| ROPs | 8 | 16+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 144 KB+50% |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 512 KB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The RADEON 9200 comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce 256 has 512 MB. The GeForce 256 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 128 KB (RADEON 9200) vs 512 KB (GeForce 256) — the GeForce 256 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 512 KB+300% |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9200 draws 50W versus the GeForce 256's 10W — a 133.3% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9200) vs 350W (GeForce 256). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W | 10W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | — | 165mm |
| Height | — | 100mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 60°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.1 | 0.5+400% |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9200 launched at $99 MSRP and currently averages $25, while the GeForce 256 launched at $199 and now averages $20. The GeForce 256 costs 20% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (RADEON 9200) vs 0.3 (GeForce 256) — the GeForce 256 offers 50% better value.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $99-50% | $199 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $25 | $20-20% |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2 | 0.3+50% |
| Codename | Polaris 24 | GP108B |
| Release | May 13 2019 | February 20 2019 |
| Ranking | #898 | #643 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RADEON 9200 and GeForce 256
