RTX A4500 vs GeForce 920MX

Place in the ranking	806	49
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	12.06	19.28
Architecture	Maxwell (2014−2017)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GM108	GA102
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	25 March 2016 (8 years ago)	23 November 2021 (3 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	256	7168
Core clock speed	965 MHz	1050 MHz
Boost clock speed	993 MHz	1650 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	16 Watt	200 Watt
Texture fill rate	23.83	369.6
Floating-point processing power	0.5084 TFLOPS	23.65 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	96
TMUs	24	224
Tensor Cores	no data	224
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	56

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).

Bus support	PCI Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin

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, GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	20 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	320 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	640.0 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

4x DisplayPort 1.4a

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)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	5.1	6.7
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.1.126	1.3
CUDA	+	8.6
DLSS	-	+

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.

GeForce 920MX 2.68

RTX A4500 53.73
+1905%

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.

GeForce 920MX 1074

RTX A4500 21516
+1903%

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.

GeForce 920MX 3950

RTX A4500 142132
+3498%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GeForce 920MX 3168

RTX A4500 130726
+4026%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

GeForce 920MX 4274

RTX A4500 171509
+3913%

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

−1665%

300−350
+1665%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1900%	160−170 +1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1900%	140−150 +1900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −1900%	140−150 +1900%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1900%	160−170 +1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1900%	140−150 +1900%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1900%	240−250 +1900%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −1900%	40−45 +1900%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1900%	100−105 +1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −1900%	200−210 +1900%
Valorant	3−4 −1900%	60−65 +1900%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −1900%	140−150 +1900%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1900%	160−170 +1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1900%	140−150 +1900%
Dota 2	16 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Fortnite	16 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1900%	240−250 +1900%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −1900%	40−45 +1900%
Grand Theft Auto V	6 −1900%	120−130 +1900%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −1900%	100−105 +1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	36 −1844%	700−750 +1844%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 −1900%	200−210 +1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −1900%	160−170 +1900%
Valorant	3−4 −1900%	60−65 +1900%
World of Tanks	50−55 −1900%	1000−1050 +1900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 −1900%	140−150 +1900%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1900%	160−170 +1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 −1900%	140−150 +1900%
Dota 2	34 −1812%	650−700 +1812%
Far Cry 5	16−18 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 −1900%	240−250 +1900%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3 −1900%	40−45 +1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8 −1900%	160−170 +1900%
Valorant	3−4 −1900%	60−65 +1900%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 −1742%	350−400 +1742%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −1900%	40−45 +1900%
World of Tanks	18−20 −1742%	350−400 +1742%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −1900%	40−45 +1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −1900%	80−85 +1900%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1900%	140−150 +1900%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 −1900%	60−65 +1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 −1900%	120−130 +1900%
Valorant	9−10 −1900%	180−190 +1900%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −1900%	300−310 +1900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −1900%	160−170 +1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −1900%	300−310 +1900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 −1900%	40−45 +1900%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1900%	40−45 +1900%
Dota 2	16−18 −1775%	300−310 +1775%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −1900%	60−65 +1900%
Fortnite	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 −1700%	18−20 +1700%
Valorant	3−4 −1900%	60−65 +1900%

This is how GeForce 920MX and RTX A4500 compete in popular games:

RTX A4500 is 1665% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.68	53.73
Recency	25 March 2016	23 November 2021
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	20 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	16 Watt	200 Watt

GeForce 920MX has 1150% lower power consumption.

RTX A4500, on the other hand, has a 1904.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4500 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 920MX in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 920MX is a notebook card while RTX A4500 is a workstation one.