GeForce 610M vs ATI Radeon HD 4250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4250 with GeForce 610M, including specs and performance data.
610M outperforms HD 4250 by a whopping 141% 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 | 1410 | 1244 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 0.90 | 4.51 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | RV620 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 February 2009 (17 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (14 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 | 40 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 594 MHz | 738 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 181 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 2.376 | 5.904 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04752 TFLOPS | 0.1417 TFLOPS |
| Video decoders | no data | H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p |
| ROPs | 4 | 4 |
| TMUs | 4 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | DDR2 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64bit |
| Memory clock speed | 396 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.336 GB/s | Up to 14.4 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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 API |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Palworld | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−12%
|
27−30
+12%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−53.8%
|
20−22
+53.8%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Palworld | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−12%
|
27−30
+12%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 1−2 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−14.3%
|
8−9
+14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−12%
|
27−30
+12%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Palworld | 0−1 | 1−2 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 610M is 133% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce 610M performs better in 22 tests (81%)
- there's a draw in 5 tests (19%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.29 | 0.70 |
| Recency | 25 February 2009 | 1 December 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 12 Watt |
GeForce 610M has a 141% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 38% more advanced lithography process, and 108% lower power consumption.
The GeForce 610M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 4250 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4250 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 610M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
