NVS 5100M vs Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)

Radeon R7 340 OEM Radeon R7 350 Radeon R7 350 640SP Radeon R7 350 Fake Card Radeon R7 350 OEM Radeon R7 350X OEM Radeon R7 360 Radeon R7 360 896SP Radeon R7 360E Radeon R7 370 Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
VS
NVS 2100M NVS 3100M NVS 4200M NVS 5100M NVS 5200M NVS 5400M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with NVS 5100M, including specs and performance data.

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
2014
2.37
+427%

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms NVS 5100M by a whopping 427% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVS 5100M NVS 5100M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8121243
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.02
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameKaveri SpectreGT216
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date14 January 2014 (11 years ago)7 January 2010 (15 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 cores38448
Core clock speed720 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistorsno data486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data35 Watt
Texture fill rateno data8.800
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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).

Interfaceno dataMXM-A (3.0)

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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.6 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-1.2

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 HD14
+600%
2−3
−600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Fortnite 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Valorant 40−45
+450%
8−9
−450%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Counter-Strike 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 45−50
+444%
9−10
−444%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Fortnite 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 9
+800%
1−2
−800%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Valorant 40−45
+450%
8−9
−450%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Dota 2 24−27
+550%
4−5
−550%
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Valorant 40−45
+450%
8−9
−450%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+533%
3−4
−533%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Valorant 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 5−6 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Valorant 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

This is how R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and NVS 5100M compete in popular games:

  • R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 600% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 2.37 0.45
Recency 14 January 2014 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 426.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 5100M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop card while NVS 5100M is a mobile workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.

AMD Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
NVIDIA NVS 5100M
NVS 5100M
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
R7 250 Radeon R7 250
NVS 5100M NVS 5100M
vs
NVS 3100M NVS 3100M
R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
vs
GT 545 GeForce GT 545
R7 250 R7 250
vs
HD 7620G HD 7620G
R7 250 R7 250
vs
HD Graphics 515 HD Graphics 515
R7 250 R7 250
vs
G450
R7 250 R7 250
vs
NVS 285 NVS 285
FirePro W4100 W4100
vs
RTX 4080 SUPER RTX 4080 SUPER
HD 8670D HD 8670D
vs
R4 Graphics R4 Graphics
HD 8670D HD 8670D
vs
ATI 3000 IGP 3000 IGP
HD 8670D HD 8670D
vs
MX450 25W MX450 25W
HD 8670D HD 8670D
vs
RTX 4080 RTX 4080
HD 8570D HD 8570D
vs
R7 (Bristol Ridge) R7 (Bristol Ridge)

Community ratings

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

3.9 21 vote

Rate Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 36 votes

Rate NVS 5100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) or NVS 5100M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.