GeForce 920A vs FirePro W2100
GeForce 920A
Popular choices:
FirePro W2100
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce 920A is positioned at rank 396 and the FirePro W2100 is on rank 190, so the FirePro W2100 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 920A
Performance Per Dollar FirePro W2100
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro W2100 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.7% higher G3D Mark score and 300% more VRAM (2 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 920A.
| Insight | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.7%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2014 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce 920A offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce 920A holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $30), it costs 50% less, resulting in a 94.8% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+94.8%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 920A and FirePro W2100
GeForce 920A
The GeForce 920A is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 928 MHz to 941 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 829 points.
FirePro W2100
The FirePro W2100 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 12 2014. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 630 MHz to 680 MHz. It has 320 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 26W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 851 points.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 920A scores 829 and the FirePro W2100 reaches 851 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 920A is built on Maxwell while the FirePro W2100 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 920A) vs 320 (FirePro W2100). Raw compute: 0.7227 TFLOPS (GeForce 920A) vs 0.4352 TFLOPS (FirePro W2100). Boost clocks: 941 MHz vs 680 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 829 | 851+3% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+20% | 320 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7227 TFLOPS+66% | 0.4352 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 941 MHz+38% | 680 MHz |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24+20% | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB+140% | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The GeForce 920A comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the FirePro W2100 has 2 GB. The FirePro W2100 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 920A) vs 0.25 MB (FirePro W2100) — the GeForce 920A has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 2 GB+300% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.0 (GeForce 920A) vs 12 (FirePro W2100). Vulkan: 1.1 vs 1.2. OpenGL: 4.5 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.0 | 12+9% |
| Vulkan | 1.1 | 1.2+9% |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6+2% |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce 920A) vs VCE 1.0 (FirePro W2100). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP5 vs UVD 4.0. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 (GeForce 920A) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2,MVC (FirePro W2100).
| Feature | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | VCE 1.0 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP5 | UVD 4.0 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2,MVC |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 920A draws 33W versus the FirePro W2100's 26W — a 23.7% difference. The FirePro W2100 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 920A) vs 350W (FirePro W2100). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 168mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 70°C vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W | 26W-21% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 168mm |
| Height | 0mm | 69mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 70°C | 65°C-7% |
| Perf/Watt | 25.1 | 32.7+30% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 920A launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the FirePro W2100 launched at $139 and now averages $30. The GeForce 920A costs 50% less ($15 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 55.3 (GeForce 920A) vs 28.4 (FirePro W2100) — the GeForce 920A offers 94.7% better value. The GeForce 920A is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2014).
| Feature | GeForce 920A | FirePro W2100 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100-28% | $139 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-50% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 55.3+95% | 28.4 |
| Codename | GM108 | Oland |
| Release | March 13 2015 | August 12 2014 |
| Ranking | #810 | #910 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 920A and FirePro W2100
