GeForce RTX 4070 vs GT 610
Aggregated performance score
RTX 4070 outperforms GT 610 by a whopping 8631% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1105 | 17 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 26 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 26.48 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Ada Lovelace |
| GPU code name | GF119 | AD104 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 2 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 April 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $39.99 | $599 |
| Current price | $98 (2.5x MSRP) | $791 (1.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
RTX 4070 has 264700% 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 | 48 | 5888 |
| CUDA cores | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 1920 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2475 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 35,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 200 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 102 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 6.5 billion/sec | 455.4 |
| Floating-point performance | 155.5 gflops | no data |
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 support | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | 240 mm |
| Height | 2.7" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |
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 | GDDR6X |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1024 MB | 12 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 21000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 504.2 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA | 1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.9 |
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.
RTX 4070 outperforms GT 610 by 8631% 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%
RTX 4070 outperforms GT 610 by 8675% in Passmark.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
RTX 4070 outperforms GT 610 by 11744% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
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 HD | 2−3
−10500%
| 212
+10500%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−11900%
| 120
+11900%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 72 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.80 | 69.85 |
| Recency | 2 April 2012 | 13 April 2023 |
| Cost | $39.99 | $599 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1024 MB | 12 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 200 Watt |
The GeForce RTX 4070 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 610 in performance tests.
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.
