NVIDIA
GeForce 205 vs Radeon 740M 8500G
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
740M 8500G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared 205 and 740M 8500G across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗740M 8500G outperforms 205 by ~10% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+10%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: GeForce 205 (~13%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider 205
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: CUDA / OpenCL 1.x · Not supported
Reasons to consider 740M 8500G
- Higher catalog performance index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0 · FSR
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Price / performance
4246
100100
Graphics card ranking
Positions 190–195of 321
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon 740M 8500G
79 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
42
46Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
37
40Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
34
37Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
45
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
59Better
52
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Device class
DirectX
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Launch price—
Shader units / cores
Power consumption—
Die size
Interface
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
Transistor count
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
VRAM
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory bus
Memory bandwidth—
Power consumption—
Process nodeBetter
Thickness
Max monitors
Memory cache
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Recommended PSU
Length
Vulkan
DisplayPort
HDMI
Compute API
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares 205 and 740M 8500G across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
205740M 8500G
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
204 FPS
191 FPS
1080p Ultra
143 FPS
134 FPS
1440p Ultra
88 FPS
104 FPS
4K Ultra
34 FPS
52 FPS
Counter-Strike 2205204 FPS740M 8500G191 FPS205143 FPS740M 8500G134 FPS20588 FPS740M 8500G104 FPS20534 FPS740M 8500G52 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077205132 FPS740M 8500G123 FPS205113 FPS740M 8500G106 FPS20564 FPS740M 8500G76 FPS20523 FPS740M 8500G35 FPS
Forza Horizon 5205166 FPS740M 8500G156 FPS205108 FPS740M 8500G101 FPS20579 FPS740M 8500G94 FPS20549 FPS740M 8500G76 FPS
Hogwarts Legacy205108 FPS740M 8500G101 FPS20590 FPS740M 8500G84 FPS20557 FPS740M 8500G68 FPS20523 FPS740M 8500G35 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10042469%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100345445%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100344630%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100130200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001000200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 100294645%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100304642%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100344630%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100264656%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100334633%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.012.2
VulkanNot supported1.3
OpenGLOpenGL 3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedFSR
Compute APICUDA / OpenCL 1.xOpenCL 3.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaNot publicly specified
Process node40 nm4 nmBetter
Release date20092023
Device classDesktopMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count314 millionNot publicly specified
Die size144 mm²Not publicly specified
Shader units / cores16Not publicly specified
Base clock589 MHz800 MHzBetter
Boost clock589 MHz2800 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16IGP
LengthVaries by boardOEM dependent
ThicknessIGPOEM dependent
Recommended PSUVaries by boardOEM dependent
Power connectorNoneIntegrated laptop power
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentOEM dependent
DisplayPortBoard dependentOEM dependent
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitorsVaries by boardOEM dependent
Max resolutionVaries by boardOEM dependent
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM512 MB DDR2SMA
Memory typeDDR2SMA
Memory bus64 bitSystem memory interface
TFLOPS0.0452.87Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 66
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (4)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 205 or 740M 8500G?+
205 has the higher overall gaming score, while 205 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
205 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
205 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
205 offers more overall performance, while 205 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
205 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
205 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
205 leads in combined 1440p performance. 205 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
205 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
205 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
205 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to 205 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.