FirePro W6150M vs GeForce4 420 Go

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce4 420 Go with FirePro W6150M, including specs and performance data.

GeForce4 420 Go
2002
32 MB DDR
0.01

W6150M outperforms GeForce4 420 Go by a whopping 56300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1595652
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureCelsius (1999−2005)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameNV17 A5Saturn
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date6 February 2002 (24 years ago)12 November 2015 (10 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 cores2768
Core clock speed200 MHz1075 MHz
Boost clock speed190 MHzno data
Number of transistors29 million2,080 million
Manufacturing process technology150 nm28 nm
Texture fill rate0.851.60
Floating-point processing powerno data1.651 TFLOPS
ROPs216
TMUs448
L1 Cacheno data192 KB
L2 Cacheno data256 KB

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).

InterfaceAGP 4xMXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDRGDDR5
Maximum RAM amount32 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed200 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth3.2 GB/s88 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX8.012 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.3
OpenGL1.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

GeForce4 420 Go 0.01
W6150M 5.64
+56300%

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.

GeForce4 420 Go 3
Samples: 8
W6150M 2358
+78500%
Samples: 4

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−54900%
1100−1150
+54900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−55733%
3350−3400
+55733%
Valorant 21−24
−56204%
12950−13000
+56204%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
−56011%
5050−5100
+56011%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
−55614%
3900−3950
+55614%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−54900%
1100−1150
+54900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−55733%
3350−3400
+55733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−56150%
2250−2300
+56150%
Valorant 21−24
−56204%
12950−13000
+56204%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
−55614%
3900−3950
+55614%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−54900%
1100−1150
+54900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−55733%
3350−3400
+55733%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−56150%
2250−2300
+56150%
Valorant 21−24
−56204%
12950−13000
+56204%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
−54900%
1100−1150
+54900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 0−1 0−1

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−54900%
550−600
+54900%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−55971%
7850−7900
+55971%
Valorant 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−54900%
550−600
+54900%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
−54900%
550−600
+54900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.01 5.64
Recency 6 February 2002 12 November 2015
Maximum RAM amount 32 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 150 nm 28 nm

W6150M has a 56300% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 436% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro W6150M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 420 Go in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce4 420 Go is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W6150M is a mobile workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 5 votes

Rate GeForce4 420 Go on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate FirePro W6150M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce4 420 Go or FirePro W6150M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.