Quadro FX 350M vs GeForce GT 610
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 610 with Quadro FX 350M, including specs and performance data.
GT 610 outperforms FX 350M by a whopping 655% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1152 | 1451 |
| Place by popularity | 100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.94 | 0.50 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | G72 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 13 March 2006 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $39.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 7 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 112 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 102 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 6.480 | 1.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1555 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 2 |
| TMUs | 8 | 4 |
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 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Height | 2.7" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1024 MB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 450 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| 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 | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 32 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.83 | 0.11 |
| Recency | 2 April 2012 | 13 March 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1024 MB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 15 Watt |
GT 610 has a 654.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.
FX 350M, on the other hand, has 93.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GT 610 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 350M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 610 is a desktop card while Quadro FX 350M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
