GeForce G210M vs Radeon RX 7600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 7600 with GeForce G210M, including specs and performance data.
RX 7600 outperforms G210M by a whopping 12234% 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 | 128 | 1394 |
| Place by popularity | 27 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 85.22 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 18.51 | 1.77 |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Navi 33 | GT218 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 24 May 2023 (3 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $269 | 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 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1720 MHz | 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2655 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,300 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 6 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 339.8 | 5.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 21.75 TFLOPS | 0.048 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 72 |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 128 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 32 | no data |
| L0 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L1 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 32 KB |
| L3 Cache | 32 MB | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 204 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | 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 | GDDR6 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 2250 MHz | Up to 500 (DDR2), Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 288.0 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1 | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVIVGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 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 Ultimate (12_2) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.8 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | 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.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 141
+781%
| 16
−781%
|
| 1440p | 71 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 37 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 1.91 | no data |
| 1440p | 3.79 | no data |
| 4K | 7.27 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 213
+21200%
|
1−2
−21200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 348
+17300%
|
2−3
−17300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 148
+14700%
|
1−2
−14700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 158
+15700%
|
1−2
−15700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+13400%
|
1−2
−13400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 336
+16700%
|
2−3
−16700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 117
+11600%
|
1−2
−11600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 183
+18200%
|
1−2
−18200%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+17100%
|
1−2
−17100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+5000%
|
3−4
−5000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+12500%
|
1−2
−12500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+2129%
|
7−8
−2129%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+743%
|
27−30
−743%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 93
+9200%
|
1−2
−9200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+13400%
|
1−2
−13400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 179
+17800%
|
1−2
−17800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280
+1886%
|
14
−1886%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100
+9900%
|
1−2
−9900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 174
+17300%
|
1−2
−17300%
|
| Fortnite | 170−180
+17100%
|
1−2
−17100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+5000%
|
3−4
−5000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130
+12500%
|
1−2
−12500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 150
+14900%
|
1−2
−14900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 113 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+2129%
|
7−8
−2129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 210
+3400%
|
6−7
−3400%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+743%
|
27−30
−743%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+13400%
|
1−2
−13400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 90
+8900%
|
1−2
−8900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 163
+16200%
|
1−2
−16200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 150−160
+5000%
|
3−4
−5000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 150−160
+2129%
|
7−8
−2129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 123
+1950%
|
6−7
−1950%
|
| Valorant | 230−240
+743%
|
27−30
−743%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 170−180
+17100%
|
1−2
−17100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 90
+4400%
|
2−3
−4400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 280−290 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 77 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 65 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+5733%
|
3−4
−5733%
|
| Valorant | 270−280
+13400%
|
2−3
−13400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 56 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 115 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 110−120
+11300%
|
1−2
−11300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 86
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 22 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 82
+486%
|
14−16
−486%
|
| Metro Exodus | 38 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 59 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 240−250
+4780%
|
5−6
−4780%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 57 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+5400%
|
1−2
−5400%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+2550%
|
2−3
−2550%
|
Full HD
High
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
This is how RX 7600 and GeForce G210M compete in popular games:
- RX 7600 is 781% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 7600 is 21200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 7600 performs better in 27 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.47 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 24 May 2023 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 6 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 165 Watt | 14 Watt |
RX 7600 has a 12234% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 567% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce G210M, on the other hand, has 1079% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 7600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G210M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 7600 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce G210M 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.
