A10G vs Radeon R6 M255DX
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R6 M255DX with A10G, including specs and performance data.
A10G outperforms R6 M255DX by a whopping 2039% 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 | 1013 | 197 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 15.63 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Ampere (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Jet | GA102 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2014 (11 years ago) | 12 April 2021 (4 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 | 320 | 9216 |
| Core clock speed | 780 MHz | 1320 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 855 MHz | 1710 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 28,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 150 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.10 | 492.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5472 TFLOPS | 31.52 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 96 |
| TMUs | 20 | 288 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 72 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 8-pin EPS |
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 | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1563 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 600.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2 |
| CUDA | - | 8.6 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 | 11
−1991%
| 230−240
+1991%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1959%
|
700−750
+1959%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
−1931%
|
650−700
+1931%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−1844%
|
350−400
+1844%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1959%
|
700−750
+1959%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−1844%
|
350−400
+1844%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−1900%
|
60−65
+1900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−2025%
|
170−180
+2025%
|
| God of War | 6−7
−1900%
|
120−130
+1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−1959%
|
700−750
+1959%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 5−6
−1900%
|
100−105
+1900%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−2000%
|
210−220
+2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2025%
|
85−90
+2025%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1900%
|
300−310
+1900%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−1900%
|
140−150
+1900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
| God of War | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1900%
|
40−45
+1900%
|
This is how R6 M255DX and A10G compete in popular games:
- A10G is 1991% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.44 | 30.80 |
| Recency | 7 January 2014 | 12 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 8 nm |
A10G has a 2038.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.
The A10G is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R6 M255DX in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R6 M255DX is a notebook graphics card while A10G 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.
