Quadro K610M vs FirePro W4100
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W4100 with Quadro K610M, including specs and performance data.
W4100 outperforms K610M by a whopping 109% 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 | 774 | 987 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.09 |
| Power efficiency | 5.48 | 4.36 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) |
| GPU code name | Cape Verde | GK208 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 13 August 2014 (11 years ago) | 23 July 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $229.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 512 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 630 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,500 million | 915 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 20.16 | 15.68 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6451 TFLOPS | 0.3763 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 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).
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Length | 171 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Form factor | low profile / half length | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | 20.8 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 | 4x mini-DisplayPort | No outputs |
| Display Port | no data | 1.2 |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| Optimus | - | + |
| 3D Vision Pro | no data | + |
| Mosaic | no data | + |
| nView Display Management | no data | + |
| Optimus | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | + |
| 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 Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
Unigine Heaven 3.0
This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.
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 | 16
+33.3%
| 12
−33.3%
|
| 4K | 3
+200%
| 1−2
−200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 19.17 |
| 4K | no data | 229.99 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+37.8%
|
35−40
−37.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+80.6%
|
35−40
−80.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+65%
|
20−22
−65%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Fortnite | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+37.8%
|
35−40
−37.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+65%
|
20−22
−65%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+70%
|
10−11
−70%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+57.1%
|
7−8
−57.1%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+37.8%
|
35−40
−37.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 20−22
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+125%
|
12−14
−125%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+76.5%
|
16−18
−76.5%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+125%
|
8−9
−125%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how FirePro W4100 and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:
- FirePro W4100 is 33% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W4100 is 200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the FirePro W4100 is 1200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- FirePro W4100 performs better in 48 tests (98%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.56 | 1.70 |
| Recency | 13 August 2014 | 23 July 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 30 Watt |
FirePro W4100 has a 109% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
Quadro K610M, on the other hand, has 67% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W4100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K610M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W4100 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro K610M 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.
