P102-100 vs Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Carrizo) with P102-100, including specs and performance data.
P102-100 outperforms R5 (Carrizo) by a whopping 405% 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 | 990 | 541 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.92 |
| Power efficiency | 3.74 | 2.64 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | Carrizo | GP102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 12 February 2018 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $599 |
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 | 256 | 3200 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 1582 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | 1683 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 11,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-35 Watt | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 336.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 10.77 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 80 |
| TMUs | no data | 200 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 1.2 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 2.5 MB |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x4 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 2x 8-pin |
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 | no data | GDDR5X |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 320 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 1376 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 440.3 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−386%
|
180−190
+386%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
−400%
|
180−190
+400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−400%
|
100−105
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−386%
|
180−190
+386%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
−400%
|
100−105
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−386%
|
180−190
+386%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
−400%
|
35−40
+400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6
−380%
|
24−27
+380%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−400%
|
60−65
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
−400%
|
85−90
+400%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
−400%
|
50−55
+400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−350%
|
18−20
+350%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−400%
|
70−75
+400%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−400%
|
40−45
+400%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−400%
|
10−11
+400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.70 | 8.58 |
| Recency | 4 June 2015 | 12 February 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 250 Watt |
R5 (Carrizo) has 1983% lower power consumption.
P102-100, on the other hand, has a 405% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
The P102-100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 (Carrizo) in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is a notebook graphics card while P102-100 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
