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

Place in the ranking	802	1233
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	no data	1.02
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Kaveri Spectre	GT216
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	14 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 cores	384	48
Core clock speed	720 MHz	550 MHz
Number of transistors	no data	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	8.800
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.1162 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	8
TMUs	no data	16

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).

Interface

no data

MXM-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 type	no data	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	1 GB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	25.6 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 Connectors

no data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (FL 12_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	no data	4.1
OpenGL	no data	3.3
OpenCL	no data	1.1
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 HD

15
+650%

2−3

−650%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Valorant	2−3	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Dota 2	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Fortnite	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Valorant	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	50−55 +456%	9−10 −456%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Dota 2	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +550%	2−3 −550%
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	24−27 +550%	4−5 −550%
Valorant	2−3	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3	0−1
World of Tanks	18−20 +533%	3−4 −533%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +433%	6−7 −433%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5	0−1
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Valorant	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	16−18 +433%	3−4 −433%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Fortnite	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Valorant	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 650% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.76	0.52
Recency	14 January 2014	7 January 2010
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm

R7 384 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 430.8% 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.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.