Radeon 625 vs GeForce GT 610

Place in performance ranking	1108	761
Place by popularity	97	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.01	0.45
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)
GPU code name	GF119	Polaris 24
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	2 April 2012 (12 years ago)	12 August 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$39.99	no data
Current price	$98 (2.5x MSRP)	$68

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Radeon 625 has 4400% 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	384
CUDA cores	48	no data
Core clock speed	810 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	1024 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	29 Watt	50 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	102 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	6.5 billion/sec	24.58
Floating-point performance	155.5 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce GT 610 and Radeon 625 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.

Bus support	PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x8
Length	5.7" (14.5 cm)	no data
Height	2.7" (6.9 cm)	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	DDR3	DDR3, GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1024 MB	4 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1.8 GB/s	2250 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	+	no data
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 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.3
OpenGL	4.2	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	no data

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 610 0.80

Radeon 625 2.78
+248%

Radeon 625 outperforms GeForce GT 610 by 248% based on our aggregate 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 610 308

Radeon 625 1075
+249%

Radeon 625 outperforms GeForce GT 610 by 249% in Passmark.

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

Cyberpunk 2077

1−2

−400%

5−6
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Hitman 3	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −260%	18−20 +260%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Battlefield 5	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Hitman 3	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −260%	18−20 +260%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	5−6 −260%	18−20 +260%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −300%	16−18 +300%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−250%

7−8
+250%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	3−4

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	2−3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Hitman 3	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	2−3
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	1−2

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−500%

6−7
+500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	1−2
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	2−3
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	3−4

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	2−3
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	3−4
Metro Exodus	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−300%

4−5
+300%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.80	2.78
Recency	2 April 2012	12 August 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1024 MB	4 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	29 Watt	50 Watt