GeForce 210 vs 910M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 910M with GeForce 210, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 910M
2015
DDR3 MB DDR3, 33 Watt
1.56
+420%

910M outperforms 210 by a whopping 420% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9691326
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.240.66
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGK208BGT218
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date13 March 2015 (9 years ago)12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$29.49

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 cores38416
Core clock speed641 MHz589 MHz
Number of transistors915 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt30.5 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data105 °C
Texture fill rate20.514.160
Floating-point processing power0.4923 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs328

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 supportPCI Express 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Heightno data2.731" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR2
Maximum RAM amountDDR3 MB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1001 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth16.02 GB/s8.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/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.

GeForce 910M 1.56
+420%
GeForce 210 0.30

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.

GeForce 910M 601
+418%
GeForce 210 116

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 HD8
+700%
1−2
−700%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data29.49

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+467%
3−4
−467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+467%
6−7
−467%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

This is how GeForce 910M and GeForce 210 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 910M is 700% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.56 0.30
Recency 13 March 2015 12 October 2009
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 30 Watt

GeForce 910M has a 420% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 210, on the other hand, has 10% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 910M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 210 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 910M is a notebook card while GeForce 210 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 910M
GeForce 910M
NVIDIA GeForce 210
GeForce 210

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.4 60 votes

Rate GeForce 910M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 3656 votes

Rate GeForce 210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.