Quadro K610M vs ATI FirePro M7740
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro M7740 and Quadro K610M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
ATI M7740 outperforms K610M by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 870 | 918 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.23 |
| Power efficiency | 2.47 | 4.27 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | M97 | GK208 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 4 August 2009 (15 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 826 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.80 | 15.68 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.832 TFLOPS | 0.3763 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 846 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 54.14 GB/s | 20.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | + |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
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 | 12−14
+9.1%
| 11
−9.1%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 20.91 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Fortnite | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+10.5%
|
18−20
−10.5%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
| World of Tanks | 40−45
+13.9%
|
35−40
−13.9%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+10.5%
|
18−20
−10.5%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+25%
|
12−14
−25%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 14−16
+16.7%
|
12−14
−16.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how ATI M7740 and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:
- ATI M7740 is 9% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the ATI M7740 is 100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- ATI M7740 is ahead in 29 tests (59%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.15 | 1.86 |
| Recency | 4 August 2009 | 23 July 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 30 Watt |
ATI M7740 has a 15.6% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro K610M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
The FirePro M7740 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K610M in performance tests.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
