ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT vs HD Graphics 610

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 610 and Radeon HD 2900 XT, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 610
2016
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 5 Watt
1.85
+8.2%

HD Graphics 610 outperforms ATI HD 2900 XT by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking912927
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.04
Power efficiency25.610.55
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT1R600
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date30 August 2016 (8 years ago)14 May 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores96320
Core clock speed300 MHz743 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million720 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)5 Watt215 Watt
Texture fill rate10.8011.89
Floating-point processing power0.1728 TFLOPS0.4755 TFLOPS
ROPs216
TMUs1216

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data241 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount32 GB512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared512 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared828 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data106.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent2x DVI, 1x S-Video

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A

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. 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.

HD Graphics 610 1.85
+8.2%
ATI HD 2900 XT 1.71

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.

HD Graphics 610 712
+8%
ATI HD 2900 XT 659

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 HD7
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data66.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3
+50%
2−3
−50%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 6
+20%
5−6
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+16.7%
30−33
−16.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how HD Graphics 610 and ATI HD 2900 XT compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 610 is 17% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.85 1.71
Recency 30 August 2016 14 May 2007
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 5 Watt 215 Watt

HD Graphics 610 has a 8.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 4200% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between HD Graphics 610 and Radeon HD 2900 XT.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 610
HD Graphics 610
ATI Radeon HD 2900 XT
Radeon HD 2900 XT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 533 votes

Rate HD Graphics 610 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 64 votes

Rate Radeon HD 2900 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.