GeForce GT 420M vs FirePro W2100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W2100 with GeForce GT 420M, including specs and performance data.
FirePro W2100 outperforms GT 420M by a whopping 123% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 810 | 1061 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.42 | 0.03 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Mars | N11P-GE |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 October 2015 (8 years ago) | 3 September 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Current price | $123 | $310 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FirePro W2100 has 1300% better value for money than GT 420M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 320 | 96 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 680 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 680 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | 585 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.60 | 6.0 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 435.2 gflops | 192 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on FirePro W2100 and GeForce GT 420M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Form factor | low profile / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR3 | (G)DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | 1 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
FirePro W2100 outperforms GeForce GT 420M by 123% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
FirePro W2100 outperforms GeForce GT 420M by 123% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
FirePro W2100 outperforms GeForce GT 420M by 134% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 24−27
+100%
| 12
−100%
|
| Full HD | 10
−50%
| 15
+50%
|
| 4K | 2 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+30.8%
|
12−14
−30.8%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 14−16
+27.3%
|
10−12
−27.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how FirePro W2100 and GT 420M compete in popular games:
- FirePro W2100 is 100% faster in 900p
- GT 420M is 50% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the FirePro W2100 is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro W2100 is ahead in 44 tests (96%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.34 | 1.05 |
| Recency | 2 October 2015 | 3 September 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 26 Watt | 23 Watt |
The FirePro W2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W2100 is a workstation card while GeForce GT 420M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
