RTX A1000 Mobile vs GeForce G 103M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce G 103M with RTX A1000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A1000 Mobile outperforms G 103M by a whopping 14913% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1505 | 285 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 29.05 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | G98 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (17 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (4 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 8 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 640 MHz | 630 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1140 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 60 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 72.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 4.669 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 32 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2 MB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 176.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.0 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | -0−1 | 67 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 27 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6200%
|
60−65
+6200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 61 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6200%
|
60−65
+6200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 50 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4500%
|
90−95
+4500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90−95
+1186%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−515%
|
160−170
+515%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−6200%
|
60−65
+6200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−2191%
|
250−260
+2191%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 37 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1300%
|
112
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4500%
|
90−95
+4500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90−95
+1186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1600%
|
85
+1600%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−515%
|
160−170
+515%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 29 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−1550%
|
132
+1550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−4500%
|
90−95
+4500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1186%
|
90−95
+1186%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−760%
|
43
+760%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−515%
|
160−170
+515%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−2350%
|
45−50
+2350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−8600%
|
170−180
+8600%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−200%
|
40−45
+200%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−3050%
|
120−130
+3050%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 85
+0%
|
85
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 91
+0%
|
91
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 41
+0%
|
41
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 73
+0%
|
73
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A1000 Mobile is 8600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX A1000 Mobile performs better in 24 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 34 tests (59%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.15 | 22.52 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 8 nm |
RTX A1000 Mobile has a 14913% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 713% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A1000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G 103M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce G 103M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A1000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
