Radeon RX 560X Mobile vs GeForce G 103M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce G 103M and Radeon RX 560X Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX 560X Mobile outperforms G 103M by a whopping 6513% 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 | 1469 | 473 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.63 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | G98 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 September 2009 (15 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (7 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 | 8 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 640 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1202 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 16 |
| TMUs | no data | 64 |
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 | large |
| Interface | no data | MXM-B (3.0) |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 92.8 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.
| FreeSync | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.0 | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.131 |
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 | 0−1 | 34 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 23 |
| God of War | 4−5
−675%
|
31
+675%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 17 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1633%
|
52
+1633%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−550%
|
26
+550%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−614%
|
50
+614%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−1009%
|
122
+1009%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 15 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−788%
|
71
+788%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1533%
|
49
+1533%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−425%
|
21
+425%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−500%
|
42
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−620%
|
36
+620%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 13 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−725%
|
66
+725%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1167%
|
38
+1167%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−50%
|
6
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−329%
|
30
+329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−340%
|
22
+340%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−850%
|
18−20
+850%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2450%
|
50−55
+2450%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2300%
|
24−27
+2300%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−40%
|
21−24
+40%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−5200%
|
50−55
+5200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| God of War | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| God of War | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 560X Mobile is 5200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 560X Mobile performs better in 25 tests (41%)
- there's a draw in 36 tests (59%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.15 | 9.92 |
| Recency | 1 September 2009 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 14 nm |
RX 560X Mobile has a 6513.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 560X Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G 103M 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.
