Mobility Radeon HD 5470 vs GeForce 810M

Place in performance ranking	1054	1162
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	0.06
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Terascale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	GF117	Park XT
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	24 March 2014 (10 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Current price	$163	$94

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

ATI Mobility HD 5470 has 500% better value for money than GeForce 810M.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	48	80
Core clock speed	738 MHz	750 MHz
Boost clock speed	950 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	585 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	13-15 Watt
Texture fill rate	5.904	6.000
Floating-point performance	141.7 gflops	120 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce 810M and Mobility Radeon HD 5470 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Width	MXM Module	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	DDR3	DDR2, GDDR2, DDR3, GDDR3, GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1800 MHz	1800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14.4 GB/s	25.6 GB/s
Shared memory	no data	-

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

API compatibility

List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.0
OpenGL	4.6	4.4
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	2.1	no data

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GeForce 810M 1.06
+73.8%

ATI Mobility HD 5470 0.61

GeForce 810M outperforms Mobility Radeon HD 5470 by 74% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GeForce 810M 411
+74.2%

ATI Mobility HD 5470 236

GeForce 810M outperforms Mobility Radeon HD 5470 by 74% in Passmark.

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	18−20 +50%	12−14 −50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +71.4%	7−8 −71.4%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +55.6%	9−10 −55.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	10−11 +66.7%	6−7 −66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

4K
High Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn

1−2
+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.06	0.61
Recency	24 March 2014	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	13 Watt