GeForce GT 610 vs GT 420M
Aggregated performance score
GT 420M outperforms GT 610 by a substantial 31% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1057 | 1105 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.03 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | N11P-GE | GF119 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 3 September 2010 (13 years ago) | 2 April 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $39.99 |
| Current price | $310 | $98 (2.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GT 420M has 200% better value for money than GT 610.
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 | 96 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | 96 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 102 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 6.0 billion/sec | 6.5 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 192 gflops | 155.5 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 420M and GeForce GT 610 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.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 5.7" (14.5 cm) |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | (G)DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1024 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 14.4 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| HDCP | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
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.
GT 420M outperforms GT 610 by 31% based on our aggregated 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%
GT 420M outperforms GT 610 by 31% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GT 420M outperforms GT 610 by 24% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
Octane Render OctaneBench
This is a special benchmark measuring graphics card performance in OctaneRender, which is a realistic GPU rendering engine by OTOY Inc., available either as a standalone program, or as a plugin for 3DS Max, Cinema 4D and many other apps. It renders four different static scenes, then compares render times with a reference GPU which is currently GeForce GTX 980. This benchmark has nothing to do with gaming and is aimed at professional 3D graphics artists.
Benchmark coverage: 4%
GT 420M outperforms GT 610 by 100% in Octane Render OctaneBench.
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 | 12
+33.3%
| 9−10
−33.3%
|
| Full HD | 17
+41.7%
| 12−14
−41.7%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how GT 420M and GT 610 compete in popular games:
- GT 420M is 33% faster in 900p
- GT 420M is 42% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.05 | 0.80 |
| Recency | 3 September 2010 | 2 April 2012 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 29 Watt |
The GeForce GT 420M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 610 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 420M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 610 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
