GeForce Go 6100 vs Radeon R4 (Beema)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R4 (Beema) and GeForce Go 6100, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R4 (Beema) outperforms Go 6100 by a whopping 2500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1108 | 1490 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | no data |
| GPU code name | Beema | C51MV |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 February 2006 (19 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 | 128 | 3 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | 1 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 425 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 110 nm |
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 | shared Memory |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | shared Memory |
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 | 8 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 22
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+87.5%
|
8−9
−87.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R4 (Beema) is 400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R4 (Beema) is ahead in 23 tests (74%)
- there's a draw in 8 tests (26%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.04 | 0.04 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 1 February 2006 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 110 nm |
R4 (Beema) has a 2500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R4 (Beema) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6100 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
