ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO vs GeForce GT 335M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 335M with Radeon HD 2600 PRO, including specs and performance data.

GT 335M
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 28 Watt
0.99
+80%

GT 335M outperforms ATI HD 2600 PRO by an impressive 80% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11091219
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.431.08
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGT215RV630
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)28 June 2007 (17 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 cores72120
Core clock speed450 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors727 million390 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)28 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate10.804.800
Floating-point processing power0.1555 TFLOPS0.144 TFLOPS
Gigaflops233no data
ROPs84
TMUs248

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
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 typeGDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s16 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 ConnectorsSingle Link DVIVGADisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVI2x DVI, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL2.13.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/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.

GT 335M 0.99
+80%
ATI HD 2600 PRO 0.55

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 335M 380
+80.1%
ATI HD 2600 PRO 211

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 HD16
+100%
8−9
−100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+100%
16−18
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+100%
16−18
−100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+85.7%
7−8
−85.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+100%
16−18
−100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 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 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how GT 335M and ATI HD 2600 PRO compete in popular games:

  • GT 335M is 100% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.99 0.55
Recency 7 January 2010 28 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 28 Watt 35 Watt

GT 335M has a 80% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 25% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 335M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2600 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 335M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 2600 PRO 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 GT 335M
GeForce GT 335M
ATI Radeon HD 2600 PRO
Radeon HD 2600 PRO

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.


4.2 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 335M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 240 votes

Rate Radeon HD 2600 PRO 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.