GeForce 210 vs GTX 960M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960M with GeForce 210, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.10
+2214%

960M outperforms 210 by a whopping 2214% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5691371
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency8.350.87
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGM107GT218S
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date13 March 2015 (11 years ago)12 October 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$29.49

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 cores64016
Core clock speed1096 MHz589 MHz
Boost clock speed1176 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt30.5 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate47.044.160
Floating-point processing power1.505 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs408
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MB32 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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data2.731" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR5GDDR2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s8.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data+
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/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.

GTX 960M 8.10
+2214%
GeForce 210 0.35

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.

GTX 960M 3376
+2228%
Samples: 10385
GeForce 210 145
Samples: 7036

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:

900p95
+2275%
4−5
−2275%
Full HD35
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
1440p150−1
4K140−1

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data29.49

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 20−22 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 20−22 0−1
Battlefield 5 38
+3700%
1−2
−3700%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 28
+2700%
1−2
−2700%
Fortnite 99
+2375%
4−5
−2375%
Forza Horizon 4 35
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
Valorant 80−85
+2633%
3−4
−2633%

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 20−22 0−1
Battlefield 5 31
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+4100%
1−2
−4100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+2460%
5−6
−2460%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Dota 2 60−65
+3000%
2−3
−3000%
Far Cry 5 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Fortnite 40
+3900%
1−2
−3900%
Forza Horizon 4 31
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Forza Horizon 5 24−27
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
Grand Theft Auto V 31
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Metro Exodus 12 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 29
+2800%
1−2
−2800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+2300%
1−2
−2300%
Valorant 80−85
+2633%
3−4
−2633%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 26
+2500%
1−2
−2500%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18 0−1
Dota 2 60−65
+3000%
2−3
−3000%
Far Cry 5 23 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 25
+2400%
1−2
−2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14 0−1
Valorant 80−85
+2633%
3−4
−2633%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 31
+3000%
1−2
−3000%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 60−65
+3000%
2−3
−3000%
Grand Theft Auto V 10−11 0−1
Metro Exodus 8−9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+4300%
1−2
−4300%
Valorant 80−85
+2633%
3−4
−2633%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 17 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7 0−1
Far Cry 5 15 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18 0−1

4K
High

Atomic Heart 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20 0−1
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10 0−1
Valorant 35−40
+3500%
1−2
−3500%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Far Cry 5 7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 5 0−1

This is how GTX 960M and GeForce 210 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960M is 2275% faster in 900p
  • GTX 960M is 3400% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.10 0.35
Recency 13 March 2015 12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 30 Watt

GTX 960M has a 2214% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 210, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 210 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 210 is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

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.


3.7 1223 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 4116 votes

Rate GeForce 210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GTX 960M or GeForce 210, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.