VIA Castle Rock vs GeForce G 102M
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | no data |
| GPU code name | MCP75 | CLE266 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 1 January 2003 (21 year 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 | 16 | 3 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 2 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 282 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 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 | DDR2, DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.0 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 3 March 2009 | 1 January 2003 |
G 102M has an age advantage of 6 years.
We couldn't decide between GeForce G 102M and VIA Castle Rock. We've got no test results to judge.
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.
