Radeon Graphics 384SP vs GeForce 9100M G mGPU

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameC79Cezanne
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date29 July 2008 (16 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 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 cores8384
Core clock speed450 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1700 MHz
Number of transistors314 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate3.60040.80
Floating-point processing power0.0176 TFLOPS1.306 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs824

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16IGP
WidthIGPIGP
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared

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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.7 (6.4)
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.1
VulkanN/A1.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 29 July 2008 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 65 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 45 Watt

9100M G mGPU has 275% lower power consumption.

Graphics 384SP, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 12 years, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel and Radeon Graphics 384SP. We've got no test results to judge.


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

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel
GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel
AMD Radeon Graphics 384SP
Radeon Graphics 384SP

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


No user ratings yet.

Rate GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 20 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics 384SP on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.