Radeon 610M vs FirePro W5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W5000 with Radeon 610M, including specs and performance data.
W5000 outperforms 610M by a whopping 147% 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 | 592 | 827 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 68 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.63 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.28 | 14.73 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | Dragon Range |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 August 2012 (13 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
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 | 768 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.60 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.267 TFLOPS | 0.5632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 2 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 2 MB |
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 | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Length | 183 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Form factor | full height / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | Portable Device Dependent |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.3 |
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 | 27−30
+125%
| 12
−125%
|
| 1440p | 60−65
+140%
| 25
−140%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 22.19 | no data |
| 1440p | 9.98 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Valorant | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how FirePro W5000 and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- FirePro W5000 is 125% faster in 1080p
- FirePro W5000 is 140% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 52 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.09 | 2.87 |
| Recency | 7 August 2012 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 15 Watt |
FirePro W5000 has a 147% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 610M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 400% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon 610M in performance tests.
Be aware that FirePro W5000 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon 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.
