Radeon Vega 6 Mobile Efficient vs Quadro 410

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1073not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.06no data
Power efficiency2.07no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)
GPU code nameGK107Raven
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date7 August 2012 (12 years ago)23 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

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 cores192384
Core clock speed706 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1011 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)38 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate11.3024.26
Floating-point processing power0.2711 TFLOPS0.7764 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs1624

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16IGP
Length176 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount512 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed891 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.26 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA3.0-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 August 2012 23 April 2018
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 38 Watt 15 Watt

Vega 6 Mobile Efficient has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 153.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro 410 and Radeon Vega 6 Mobile Efficient. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro 410 is a workstation card while Radeon Vega 6 Mobile Efficient is a notebook one.


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.


NVIDIA Quadro 410
Quadro 410
AMD Radeon Vega 6 Mobile Efficient
Radeon Vega 6 Mobile Efficient

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.


2.6 14 votes

Rate Quadro 410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 4 votes

Rate Radeon Vega 6 Mobile Efficient 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.