GeForce 9100M G vs Radeon R4 (Beema)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Beema) and GeForce 9100M G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R4 (Beema) outperforms 9100M G by a whopping 375% 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 | 1169 | 1453 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | no data |
| GPU code name | Beema | MCP77MH MCP79MH |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 years ago) | 3 June 2008 (17 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 | 128 | 8 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
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 bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 10 |
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.
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.
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 | 8
+700%
| 1−2
−700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 22
+83.3%
|
12−14
−83.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+24%
|
24−27
−24%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how R4 (Beema) and 9100M G compete in popular games:
- R4 (Beema) is 700% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R4 (Beema) is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R4 (Beema) performs better in 28 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.95 | 0.20 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 3 June 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
R4 (Beema) has a 375% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R4 (Beema) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9100M G 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.
