GeForce 205VSRadeon RX 6800M
Performance, specifications and real-world gaming comparison
🎮 Przetestowano w 0 grach▣ 3 resolutions: 1080p / 1440p / 4K↗ Aktualne dane katalogu♢ Testing methodology
♜ ZWYCIĘZCAGeForce 205+8%Lepsza wydajność ogólna
NVIDIA
205
VSZWYCIĘZCA2058%Ogólny indeks H2H
AMD
Radeon RX 6800M
Wydajność4751
Efektywność100100
Data confidence6045
Fixed-scale H2H model. Missing metrics are omitted instead of estimated from the overall score.
SUMMARY PROFILE
Verified-metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIAAMDPerformance
Efficiency
4751
100100
SPOŁECZNOŚĆ · ZWERYFIKOWANE DANE
Otwórz konfiguracje streamerów→Sprzęt używany przez streamerów
Prawdziwe publiczne konfiguracje powiązane z każdym urządzeniem.
NVIDIA2050Brak jeszcze zweryfikowanej publicznej konfiguracji
AMDRadeon RX 6800M0Brak jeszcze zweryfikowanej publicznej konfiguracji
WYNIK PORÓWNANIA
205 is the best overall choice
205 leads in combined gaming performance. 205 offers the better price per frame, while the final choice depends on the required features, memory, and games.
205 leads in the combined performance index
Radeon RX 6800M costs less
CATALOG POSITION
Full ranking →Graphics card ranking
Positions 39–44of 723
COMPARISON VERDICT
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 205
0 polubieńHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
GeForce 205
100/100 · Price $79The choice is based on the price-to-performance index and launch price.
OCENA OGÓLNA
Przegląd
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
47
51Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
40
43Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
38
41Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
67Better
62
PEŁNE PORÓWNANIE
Specyfikacja
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
HDMI——
DisplayPort——
USB Type-C——
DirectX10.012.2
Vulkan—1.4
OpenGL3.34.6
TFLOPS0.04512.24Better
Max monitors——
Max resolution——
Upscaling——
Compute API—OpenCL 2.1
Launch price$79—
Shader units / Cores162560Better
Memory cache—L1 128 KB, L2 3 MB
TDP31 WBetter145 W
Die size144 mm²Better335 mm²
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Clock speed589 MHz2116–2390 MHzBetter
Base clock589 MHz2116 MHzBetter
Boost clock589 MHz2390 MHzBetter
Transistor count314 million17200 millionBetter
Memory typeDDR2GDDR6
Power connectorNoneNone
Release date20092021-05-31
ArchitectureTeslaRDNA 2
Recommended PSU——
Length——
Video memory512 MB DDR2Better12 GB GDDR6
Memory clock800 MHz2000 MHzBetter
Memory bus64 bit192 bitBetter
Bandwidth6400 GB/sBetter384 GB/s
Power consumption31 WBetter145 W
Process node40 nm7 nmBetter
ThicknessIGPIGP
FPS w grach
Loading test-rig results…
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10047518%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100425629%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10047518%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100000%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001001000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
HEAD TO HEAD · CALCULATED INDEX
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10047518%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10047518%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10047518%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10047518%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10047518%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from 3DMark, Geekbench, Cinebench, PassMark, Blender, or another third-party benchmark.
API and SDK compatibility
DirectX10.012.2
Vulkan—1.4
OpenGL3.34.6
Upscaling——
Compute API—OpenCL 2.1
Basic information
ArchitectureTeslaRDNA 2
Process node40 nm7 nmBetter
Release date20092021-05-31
Detailed specifications
Transistor count314 million17200 millionBetter
Die size144 mm²Better335 mm²
Shader units / Cores162560Better
Base clock589 MHz2116 MHzBetter
Boost clock589 MHz2390 MHzBetter
Form factor and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length——
ThicknessIGPIGP
Recommended PSU——
Power connectorNoneNone
Connectivity and outputs
HDMI——
DisplayPort——
USB Type-C——
Max monitors——
Max resolution——
VRAM capacity and type
Video memory512 MB DDR2Better12 GB GDDR6
Memory typeDDR2GDDR6
Memory bus64 bit192 bitBetter
TFLOPS0.04512.24Better
HEAD TO HEAD · DISCOVER
6Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
WYJAŚNIENIE AI · HEAD TO HEAD
Wyjaśnij to porównanie
Nie tylko procenty: przyczyny, istotne specyfikacje i praktyczny wpływ każdego wykresu.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
PRAWDZIWE KONFIGURACJE
Doświadczenia właścicieli
Prawdziwe zestawy, wyniki i opinie społeczności.
♢Moderator reviewed☆Helpful to the community🏅Expert badges
Najczęstsze pytania o porównanie
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: 205 or Radeon RX 6800M?+
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.