CMP 30HX vs Quadro K610M

Place in the ranking	987	430
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.09	4.42
Power efficiency	4.36	7.87
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GK208	TU116
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (12 years ago)	25 February 2021 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$229.99	$799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

CMP 30HX has 4811% better value for money than Quadro K610M.

Performance to price scatter graph

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	192	1408
Core clock speed	980 MHz	1530 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1785 MHz
Number of transistors	915 million	6,600 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	125 Watt
Texture fill rate	15.68	157.1
Floating-point processing power	0.3763 TFLOPS	5.027 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	48
TMUs	16	88
L1 Cache	16 KB	1.4 MB
L2 Cache	128 KB	1536 KB

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	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 1.0 x4
Length	no data	229 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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 type	GDDR5	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	650 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	20.8 GB/s	336.0 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	No outputs
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX	12	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.8
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	+	1.3
CUDA	+	7.5

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.

Quadro K610M 1.70

CMP 30HX 12.78
+652%

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.

Quadro K610M 713
Samples: 181

CMP 30HX 5521
+674%

Samples: 26

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro K610M 1996

CMP 30HX 64842
+3149%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Quadro K610M 1867

CMP 30HX 62480
+3247%

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

−650%

90−95
+650%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

19.17

−116%

8.88
+116%

CMP 30HX has 116% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Resident Evil 4 Remake	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Fortnite	7−8 −614%	50−55 +614%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −650%	75−80 +650%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −650%	75−80 +650%
Valorant	35−40 −630%	270−280 +630%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	35−40 −650%	270−280 +650%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Dota 2	20−22 −650%	150−160 +650%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Fortnite	7−8 −614%	50−55 +614%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −650%	75−80 +650%
Forza Horizon 5	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
Grand Theft Auto V	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Metro Exodus	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −650%	75−80 +650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −614%	50−55 +614%
Valorant	35−40 −630%	270−280 +630%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Dota 2	20−22 −650%	150−160 +650%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 −650%	75−80 +650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−11 −650%	75−80 +650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 −614%	50−55 +614%
Valorant	35−40 −630%	270−280 +630%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite

7−8
−614%

50−55

+614%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	5−6 −600%	35−40 +600%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	12−14 −650%	90−95 +650%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 −606%	120−130 +606%
Valorant	10−11 −650%	75−80 +650%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Far Cry 5	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −650%	30−33 +650%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite

3−4
−600%

21−24

+600%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −614%	100−105 +614%
Valorant	8−9 −650%	60−65 +650%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%

4K
Epic

Fortnite

3−4
−600%

21−24

+600%

This is how Quadro K610M and CMP 30HX compete in popular games:

CMP 30HX is 650% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.70	12.78
Recency	23 July 2013	25 February 2021
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	125 Watt

Quadro K610M has 317% lower power consumption.

CMP 30HX, on the other hand, has a 652% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133% more advanced lithography process.

The CMP 30HX is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K610M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K610M is a mobile workstation graphics card while CMP 30HX is a workstation one.