Radeon 610M vs GeForce GT 330M

Place in the ranking	1216	789
Place by popularity	not in top-100	50
Power efficiency	1.68	13.29
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GT216	Dragon Range
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	10 January 2010 (15 years ago)	3 January 2023 (2 years ago)

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	48	128
Core clock speed	625 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2200 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	no data
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	10.00	17.60
Floating-point processing power	0.06528 TFLOPS	0.5632 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	182	no data
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	8
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	2

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	medium sized	no data
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectors	None	None
SLI options	+	-

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	GDDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	25.28 GB/s	no data
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	HDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGADisplayPort	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management

8.0

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.7
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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.

GT 330M 0.56

Radeon 610M 2.89
+416%

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.

GT 330M 216

Radeon 610M 1111
+414%

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.

GT 330M 2658

Radeon 610M 12065
+354%

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:

900p	10 −400%	50−55 +400%
Full HD	17 +30.8%	13 −30.8%
1440p	10−12 −510%	61 +510%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −217%	19 +217%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −200%	21 +200%
Fortnite	0−1	16−18
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −133%	14 +133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −238%	27−30 +238%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −100%	10−11 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −120%	10−12 +120%
World of Tanks	16−18 −206%	50−55 +206%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −129%	16−18 +129%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −83.3%	11 +83.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −238%	27−30 +238%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −567%	20−22 +567%
World of Tanks	1−2 −1900%	20−22 +1900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −75%	7−8 +75%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Valorant	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	2−3
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 −6.7%	16−18 +6.7%
Valorant	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring

5−6

+0%

5−6

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Metro Exodus	16 +0%	16 +0%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	10 +0%	10 +0%
Elden Ring	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	16 +0%	16 +0%
Metro Exodus	11 +0%	11 +0%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Dota 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	0−1	0−1
Elden Ring	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Elden Ring	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Fortnite	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GT 330M and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:

Radeon 610M is 400% faster in 900p
GT 330M is 31% faster in 1080p
Radeon 610M is 510% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 610M is 1900% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Radeon 610M is ahead in 29 tests (56%)
there's a draw in 23 tests (44%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.56	2.89
Recency	10 January 2010	3 January 2023
Chip lithography	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	15 Watt

Radeon 610M has a 416.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 610M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 330M in performance tests.

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