RTX A4500 Mobile vs GeForce G102M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce G102M with RTX A4500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A4500 Mobile outperforms G102M by a whopping 9950% 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 | 1348 | 120 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 2.27 | 22.31 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | C79 | GA104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 8 January 2009 (17 years ago) | 22 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 | 16 | 5888 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 17,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 140 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | 276.0 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0352 TFLOPS | 17.66 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 48 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 96 |
| TMUs | 8 | 184 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 184 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 46 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 5.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 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 | large |
| Bus support | PCI-E 1.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 512 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.4 GB/s | 512.0 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 | VGAHDMIDisplayPortSingle Link DVILVDS | Portable Device Dependent |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230 | 220−230 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 110−120 | 110−120 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230 | 220−230 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Fortnite | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 120−130 | 120−130 |
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 220−230 | 220−230 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 270−280 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Dota 2 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Fortnite | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Metro Exodus | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Dota 2 | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Far Cry 5 | 130−140 | 130−140 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160 | 150−160 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 140−150 | 140−150 |
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170−180 | 170−180 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290 | 280−290 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90 | 85−90 |
| Metro Exodus | 60−65 | 60−65 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 170−180 |
| Valorant | 270−280 | 270−280 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 100−110 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Far Cry 5 | 95−100 | 95−100 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 75−80 | 75−80 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 100−110 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 30−35 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 90−95 | 90−95 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 35−40 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Valorant | 240−250 | 240−250 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70 | 65−70 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 45−50 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24 | 21−24 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120 | 110−120 |
| Far Cry 5 | 55−60 | 55−60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 75−80 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60 | 55−60 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55 | 50−55 |
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.40 | 40.20 |
| Recency | 8 January 2009 | 22 March 2022 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 140 Watt |
GeForce G102M has 90% lower power consumption.
RTX A4500 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 9950% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 88% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A4500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G102M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce G102M is a notebook graphics card while RTX A4500 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.
