Radeon RX 560X Mobile vs P102-100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared P102-100 with Radeon RX 560X Mobile, including specs and performance data.
560X Mobile outperforms P102-100 by a significant 25% 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 | 560 | 483 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.93 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.42 | 11.68 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | Polaris 21 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 February 2018 (7 years ago) | 11 April 2018 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 3200 | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 1582 MHz | 1275 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1683 MHz | 1202 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 3,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 65 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 336.6 | 81.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 10.77 TFLOPS | 2.611 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 80 | 16 |
| TMUs | 200 | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 1.2 MB | 256 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2.5 MB | 1024 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).
| Laptop size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x4 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR5X | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 320 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1376 MHz | 1450 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 440.3 GB/s | 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 outputs | 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 support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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 | 27−30
−25.9%
| 34
+25.9%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 22.19 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 122
+0%
|
122
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 49
+0%
|
49
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| 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%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
This is how P102-100 and RX 560X Mobile compete in popular games:
- RX 560X Mobile is 26% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.82 | 9.80 |
| Recency | 12 February 2018 | 11 April 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 5 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 65 Watt |
P102-100 has a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.
RX 560X Mobile, on the other hand, has a 25.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 month, a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 284.6% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560X Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the P102-100 in performance tests.
Be aware that P102-100 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 560X Mobile is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
