ATI Mobility Radeon HD 540v vs Quadro 5010M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro 5010M with Mobility Radeon HD 540v, including specs and performance data.
5010M outperforms ATI Mobility HD 540v by a whopping 1088% 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 | 716 | 1332 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.08 | 1.73 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | TeraScale (2005−2013) |
| GPU code name | GF110 | M92 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 February 2011 (14 years ago) | 5 May 2010 (15 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 | 384 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 242 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 4.400 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.6912 TFLOPS | 0.088 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 8 |
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-B (3.0) | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 650 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 10.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.0 | - |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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:
| 900p | 38
+1167%
| 3−4
−1167%
|
| Full HD | 59
+1375%
| 4−5
−1375%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 70−75
+421%
|
14−16
−421%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+260%
|
10−11
−260%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| God of War | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+725%
|
4−5
−725%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| God of War | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| God of War | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how Quadro 5010M and ATI Mobility HD 540v compete in popular games:
- Quadro 5010M is 1167% faster in 900p
- Quadro 5010M is 1375% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro 5010M is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro 5010M surpassed ATI Mobility HD 540v in all 29 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.04 | 0.34 |
| Recency | 22 February 2011 | 5 May 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 15 Watt |
Quadro 5010M has a 1088.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
ATI Mobility HD 540v, on the other hand, has 566.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro 5010M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 540v in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro 5010M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Mobility Radeon HD 540v is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
