ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5165 vs GeForce 920M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 920M and Mobility Radeon HD 5165, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
920M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 5165 by an impressive 69% 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 | 957 | 1129 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.92 | 2.18 |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GK208B | M96 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 13 March 2015 (10 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 954 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 514 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 30.53 | 19.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7327 TFLOPS | 0.384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 32 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 28.8 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| Optimus | + | - |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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.
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 | 17
+70%
| 10−12
−70%
|
| 4K | 9
+80%
| 5−6
−80%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 29
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+44%
|
24−27
−44%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 27
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 15
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 25
+66.7%
|
14−16
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+19.4%
|
30−35
−19.4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how GeForce 920M and ATI Mobility HD 5165 compete in popular games:
- GeForce 920M is 70% faster in 1080p
- GeForce 920M is 80% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce 920M is 2800% faster.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 5165 is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce 920M is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
- ATI Mobility HD 5165 is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.66 | 0.98 |
| Recency | 13 March 2015 | 7 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 33 Watt | 35 Watt |
GeForce 920M has a 69.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 6.1% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 920M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5165 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
