P102-100 vs GeForce GTX 680M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 680M SLI with P102-100, including specs and performance data.
680M SLI outperforms P102-100 by an impressive 63% 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 | 397 | 530 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 1.08 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.87 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GTX | GP102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2012 (14 years ago) | 12 February 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 2688 | 3200 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 1582 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1683 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 11,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 336.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 10.77 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 80 |
| TMUs | no data | 200 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.2 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2.5 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 3600 MHz | 1376 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 440.3 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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:
| 900p | 133
+66.3%
| 80−85
−66.3%
|
| Full HD | 98
+78.2%
| 55−60
−78.2%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 10.89 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 30−35
+83.3%
|
18−20
−83.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+64%
|
75−80
−64%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 35−40
+85.7%
|
21−24
−85.7%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 229
+63.6%
|
140−150
−63.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+72.7%
|
55−60
−72.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Fortnite | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+70.8%
|
24−27
−70.8%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+64%
|
75−80
−64%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+65%
|
40−45
−65%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+77.8%
|
18−20
−77.8%
|
| Dota 2 | 95−100
+72.7%
|
55−60
−72.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+66.7%
|
30−33
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+82.9%
|
35−40
−82.9%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+90%
|
30−33
−90%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+70.8%
|
24−27
−70.8%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+64%
|
75−80
−64%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 85−90
+70%
|
50−55
−70%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33
+66.7%
|
18−20
−66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120
+73.8%
|
65−70
−73.8%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27
+78.6%
|
14−16
−78.6%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18−20
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 130−140
+70%
|
80−85
−70%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+64.7%
|
85−90
−64.7%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+79.2%
|
24−27
−79.2%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35
+88.9%
|
18−20
−88.9%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+75%
|
16−18
−75%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+75%
|
12−14
−75%
|
| Valorant | 75−80
+68.9%
|
45−50
−68.9%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 55−60
+83.3%
|
30−33
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+68.8%
|
16−18
−68.8%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+66.7%
|
9−10
−66.7%
|
This is how GTX 680M SLI and P102-100 compete in popular games:
- GTX 680M SLI is 66% faster in 900p
- GTX 680M SLI is 78% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 15.11 | 9.25 |
| Recency | 4 June 2012 | 12 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
GTX 680M SLI has a 63% higher aggregate performance score.
P102-100, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 680M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the P102-100 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 680M SLI is a notebook graphics card while P102-100 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
