P106-090 vs GeForce GT 420M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 420M with P106-090, including specs and performance data.

GT 420M
2010
1 GB DDR3, 23 Watt
1.03

P106-090 outperforms GT 420M by a whopping 489% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1096577
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.105.60
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGF108GP106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date3 September 2010 (14 years ago)31 July 2017 (7 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 cores96768
Core clock speed500 MHz1354 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1531 MHz
Number of transistors585 million4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate8.00073.49
Floating-point processing power0.192 TFLOPS2.352 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs1648

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 sizemedium sizedno data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Lengthno data250 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB3 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2002 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s192.2 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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+6.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 420M 1.03
P106-090 6.07
+489%

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.

GT 420M 397
P106-090 2342
+490%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 420M 1583
P106-090 21138
+1235%

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:

900p12
−483%
70−75
+483%
Full HD17
−488%
100−110
+488%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−463%
180−190
+463%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−445%
60−65
+445%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−463%
180−190
+463%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
−440%
27−30
+440%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−477%
75−80
+477%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−445%
60−65
+445%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−463%
180−190
+463%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Hitman 3 7−8
−471%
40−45
+471%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−425%
21−24
+425%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

This is how GT 420M and P106-090 compete in popular games:

  • P106-090 is 483% faster in 900p
  • P106-090 is 488% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.03 6.07
Recency 3 September 2010 31 July 2017
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 3 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 16 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 75 Watt

GT 420M has 226.1% lower power consumption.

P106-090, on the other hand, has a 489.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

The P106-090 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 420M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 420M is a notebook card while P106-090 is a workstation one.


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 GT 420M
GeForce GT 420M
NVIDIA P106-090
P106-090

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.


2.7 121 vote

Rate GeForce GT 420M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 49 votes

Rate P106-090 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.