UHD Graphics 610 vs Quadro NVS 135M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 135M with UHD Graphics 610, including specs and performance data.
Graphics 610 outperforms 135M by a whopping 1358% 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 | 1522 | 993 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.93 | 9.03 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Generation 9.5 (2016−2020) |
| GPU code name | G86 | Coffee Lake GT1 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (19 years ago) | 3 April 2018 (8 years ago) |
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 | 16 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 189 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 14 nm+++ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 10.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0256 TFLOPS | 0.1728 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 2 |
| TMUs | 8 | 12 |
| L2 Cache | 16 KB | no data |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | Ring Bus |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 594 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 9.504 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 0−1 | 8 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−46.2%
|
35−40
+46.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
−236%
|
35−40
+236%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−50%
|
12
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4
−25%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−46.2%
|
35−40
+46.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−37.5%
|
11
+37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−350%
|
9−10
+350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−57.1%
|
10−12
+57.1%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−46.2%
|
35−40
+46.2%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3
+0%
|
3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the NVS 135M is 25% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics 610 is 1700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- NVS 135M performs better in 1 test (2%)
- UHD Graphics 610 performs better in 23 tests (49%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (49%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.12 | 1.75 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 3 April 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 15 Watt |
NVS 135M has 50% lower power consumption.
UHD Graphics 610, on the other hand, has a 1358% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
The UHD Graphics 610 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 135M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 135M is a mobile workstation graphics card while UHD Graphics 610 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.
