P106-100 vs Radeon R7 370

Place in the ranking	426	329
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.75	no data
Power efficiency	7.28	9.92
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code name	Trinidad	GP106
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Design	reference	no data
Release date	18 June 2015 (9 years ago)	19 June 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$149	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	1024	1280
Core clock speed	no data	1506 MHz
Boost clock speed	975 MHz	1709 MHz
Number of transistors	2,800 million	4,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	120 Watt
Texture fill rate	62.40	136.7
Floating-point processing power	1.997 TFLOPS	4.375 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	48
TMUs	64	80

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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	152 mm	250 mm
Width	2-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1 x 6-pin	1x 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 type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	975 MHz	2002 MHz
Memory bandwidth	179.2 GB/s	192.2 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 Connectors	2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	No outputs
Eyefinity	+	-
Number of Eyefinity displays	6	no data
HDMI	+	-
DisplayPort support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration	+	-
CrossFire	+	-
FreeSync	+	-
TrueAudio	+	-
VCE	+	-
DDMA audio	+	no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	+	1.2.131
Mantle	+	-
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.

R7 370 10.07

P106-100 14.97
+48.7%

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.

R7 370 4500

P106-100 6689
+48.6%

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	47 −38.3%	65−70 +38.3%
1440p	57 −40.4%	80−85 +40.4%
4K	20 −35%	27−30 +35%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.17	no data
1440p	2.61	no data
4K	7.45	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	27−30 −48.1%	40−45 +48.1%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −41.7%	85−90 +41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	27−30 −48.1%	40−45 +48.1%
Battlefield 5	45−50 −45.8%	70−75 +45.8%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −41.7%	85−90 +41.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −48.6%	55−60 +48.6%
Fortnite	106 −41.5%	150−160 +41.5%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −38.3%	65−70 +38.3%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −47.1%	50−55 +47.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	38 −44.7%	55−60 +44.7%
Valorant	100−105 −40%	140−150 +40%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	27−30 −48.1%	40−45 +48.1%
Battlefield 5	45−50 −45.8%	70−75 +45.8%
Counter-Strike 2	60−65 −41.7%	85−90 +41.7%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	160−170 −43.8%	230−240 +43.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Dota 2	75−80 −44.7%	110−120 +44.7%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −48.6%	55−60 +48.6%
Fortnite	41 −46.3%	60−65 +46.3%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −38.3%	65−70 +38.3%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 −47.1%	50−55 +47.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	44 −47.7%	65−70 +47.7%
Metro Exodus	21−24 −36.4%	30−33 +36.4%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	30 −33.3%	40−45 +33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35 −42.9%	50−55 +42.9%
Valorant	100−105 −40%	140−150 +40%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 −45.8%	70−75 +45.8%
Cyberpunk 2077	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Dota 2	75−80 −44.7%	110−120 +44.7%
Far Cry 5	35−40 −48.6%	55−60 +48.6%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 −38.3%	65−70 +38.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	35−40 −41%	55−60 +41%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	22 −36.4%	30−33 +36.4%
Valorant	20 −35%	27−30 +35%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

−33.3%

40−45
+33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	20−22 −35%	27−30 +35%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	81 −48.1%	120−130 +48.1%
Grand Theft Auto V	16−18 −31.3%	21−24 +31.3%
Metro Exodus	12−14 −38.5%	18−20 +38.5%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70 −41.8%	95−100 +41.8%
Valorant	120−130 −41.7%	170−180 +41.7%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	27−30 −42.9%	40−45 +42.9%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Far Cry 5	21−24 −30.4%	30−33 +30.4%
Forza Horizon 4	27−30 −48.1%	40−45 +48.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 −41.2%	24−27 +41.2%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

21−24

−30.4%

30−33
+30.4%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	9−10 −33.3%	12−14 +33.3%
Counter-Strike 2	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	45 −44.4%	65−70 +44.4%
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 −36.4%	30−33 +36.4%
Metro Exodus	7−8 −42.9%	10−11 +42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 −38.5%	18−20 +38.5%
Valorant	55−60 −46.6%	85−90 +46.6%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16 −28.6%	18−20 +28.6%
Counter-Strike 2	5−6 −40%	7−8 +40%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	40−45 −37.5%	55−60 +37.5%
Far Cry 5	10−12 −45.5%	16−18 +45.5%
Forza Horizon 4	18−20 −42.1%	27−30 +42.1%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −40%	14−16 +40%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

10−11

−40%

14−16
+40%

This is how R7 370 and P106-100 compete in popular games:

P106-100 is 38% faster in 1080p
P106-100 is 40% faster in 1440p
P106-100 is 35% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	10.07	14.97
Recency	18 June 2015	19 June 2017
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	16 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	110 Watt	120 Watt

R7 370 has 9.1% lower power consumption.

P106-100, on the other hand, has a 48.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.

The P106-100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R7 370 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 370 is a desktop card while P106-100 is a workstation one.