Radeon 610M vs GeForce Go 6800
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce Go 6800 and Radeon 610M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
610M outperforms Go 6800 by a whopping 1048% 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 | 1426 | 827 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 71 |
| Power efficiency | 0.43 | 14.73 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | NV41 | Dragon Range |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 8 November 2004 (21 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 | 17 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 300 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 190 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 130 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.600 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.5632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 12 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 2 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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 |
| Interface | MXM-III | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 550 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 35.2 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 | Portable Device Dependent | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 2.0 (full) 2.1 (partial) | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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 | 1−2
−1100%
| 12
+1100%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−1150%
| 25
+1150%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−84%
|
45−50
+84%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−323%
|
55−60
+323%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−160%
|
13
+160%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−84%
|
45−50
+84%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−211%
|
27−30
+211%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−400%
|
14−16
+400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−85.7%
|
12−14
+85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−60%
|
8
+60%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−84%
|
45−50
+84%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−100%
|
6−7
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−767%
|
24−27
+767%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
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%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+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 Go 6800 and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 610M is 1100% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 610M is 1150% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 610M is 1300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 610M performs better in 26 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 26 tests (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.25 | 2.87 |
| Recency | 8 November 2004 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 130 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 610M has a 1048% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 18 years, a 2500% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 610M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6800 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.
