Radeon 610M vs GeForce GTS 350M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTS 350M and Radeon 610M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
610M outperforms GTS 350M by a whopping 215% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1184 | 827 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 71 |
| Power efficiency | 2.50 | 14.73 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | Dragon Range |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (16 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (3 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 cores | 96 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.00 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.24 TFLOPS | 0.5632 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 360 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 2 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 2 MB |
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 size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
| MXM Type | MXM 3.0 Type-B | 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 2000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | DisplayPortLVDSHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGA | Portable Device Dependent |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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 | 3−4
−300%
| 12
+300%
|
| 1440p | 7−8
−257%
| 25
+257%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−48.4%
|
45−50
+48.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
−129%
|
55−60
+129%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−100%
|
27−30
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1200%
|
13
+1200%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−48.4%
|
45−50
+48.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−200%
|
6−7
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−100%
|
27−30
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1100%
|
12
+1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−150%
|
14−16
+150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−44.4%
|
12−14
+44.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−48.4%
|
45−50
+48.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−340%
|
21−24
+340%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−160%
|
24−27
+160%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 5−6 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how GTS 350M and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 610M is 300% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 610M is 257% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 610M is 1400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 610M performs better in 35 tests (73%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.91 | 2.87 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 28 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 610M has a 215% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% more advanced lithography process, and 87% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 610M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 350M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
