Quadro K610M vs GeForce GT 335M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 335M with Quadro K610M, including specs and performance data.
K610M outperforms 335M by an impressive 99% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1208 | 999 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.10 |
| Power efficiency | 2.38 | 4.41 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 72 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | 15.68 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1555 TFLOPS | 0.3763 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 233 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 128 KB |
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 size | medium sized | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 20.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Single Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 16
+33.3%
| 12
−33.3%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 19.17 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−20%
|
35−40
+20%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−56.5%
|
35−40
+56.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−20%
|
35−40
+20%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−42.9%
|
20−22
+42.9%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−50%
|
9−10
+50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−33
−20%
|
35−40
+20%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−88.9%
|
16−18
+88.9%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Valorant | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
This is how GT 335M and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:
- GT 335M is 33% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro K610M is 600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro K610M performs better in 37 tests (73%)
- there's a draw in 14 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.86 | 1.71 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 23 July 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 30 Watt |
GT 335M has 7% lower power consumption.
Quadro K610M, on the other hand, has a 99% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro K610M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 335M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 335M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro K610M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
