GeForce 210 vs Quadro FX 570M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 570M with GeForce 210, including specs and performance data.

FX 570M
2007
512 MB GDDR3, 45 Watt
0.24
GeForce 210
2009, $29
512 MB GDDR2, 30 Watt
0.35
+45.8%

210 outperforms 570M by a considerable 46% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking14491372
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.410.87
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameG84GT218S
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date1 June 2007 (19 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 cores3216
Core clock speed475 MHz589 MHz
Number of transistors289 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)45 Watt30.5 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate7.6004.160
Floating-point processing power0.0608 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs168
L2 Cache32 KB32 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 supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data2.731" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR2
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth22.4 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+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.04.1
OpenGL3.33.1
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.1+

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.

FX 570M 0.24
GeForce 210 0.35
+45.8%

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.

FX 570M 99
Samples: 163
GeForce 210 144
+45.5%
Samples: 7031

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Palworld 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Palworld 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Valorant 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−38.5%
18−20
+38.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Palworld 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Valorant 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 9−10
−33.3%
12−14
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%
Valorant 24−27
−40%
35−40
+40%

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic

Palworld 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−40%
21−24
+40%
Valorant 5−6
−40%
7−8
+40%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.24 0.35
Recency 1 June 2007 12 October 2009
Chip lithography 80 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 45 Watt 30 Watt

GeForce 210 has a 46% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 210 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 570M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 570M is a mobile workstation 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.


4 5 votes

Rate Quadro FX 570M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 4114 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 Quadro FX 570M or GeForce 210, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.