GeForce 410M vs GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile and GeForce 410M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
980 Mobile outperforms 410M by a whopping 2918% 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 | 318 | 1259 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.33 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.59 | 4.19 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 21 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | no data |
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 | 2048 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 136.2 | 4.600 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.358 TFLOPS | 0.1104 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 128 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | Up to 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 12.8 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | + |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | + |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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 | 99
+1138%
| 8
−1138%
|
| 4K | 46
+4500%
| 1−2
−4500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.00 | no data |
| 4K | 8.60 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+3367%
|
3−4
−3367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1520%
|
5−6
−1520%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+425%
|
27−30
−425%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+1142%
|
18−20
−1142%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+825%
|
12−14
−825%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+3367%
|
3−4
−3367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1520%
|
5−6
−1520%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84
+4100%
|
2−3
−4100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+1300%
|
6−7
−1300%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+425%
|
27−30
−425%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+4000%
|
2−3
−4000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+825%
|
12−14
−825%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+1520%
|
5−6
−1520%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+850%
|
8−9
−850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+633%
|
6−7
−633%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+425%
|
27−30
−425%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+3367%
|
3−4
−3367%
|
| Palworld | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+4700%
|
3−4
−4700%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2329%
|
7−8
−2329%
|
| Valorant | 170−180
+3340%
|
5−6
−3340%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+5600%
|
1−2
−5600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Palworld | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+300%
|
14−16
−300%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+1667%
|
6−7
−1667%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+3300%
|
2−3
−3300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Palworld | 16−18 | 0−1 |
This is how GTX 980 Mobile and GeForce 410M compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Mobile is 1138% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Mobile is 4500% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 980 Mobile is 4900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 Mobile surpassed GeForce 410M in all 33 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.62 | 0.65 |
| Recency | 21 September 2015 | 5 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 12 Watt |
GTX 980 Mobile has a 2918% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 410M, on the other hand, has 733% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 410M 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.
