K610M vs FX 2700M

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

FX 2700M
0.95

K610M outperforms FX 2700M by 95% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking1076869
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money0.020.13
ArchitectureG9x (2007−2010)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameNB9E-GLM2GK208
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date14 August 2008 (15 years old)23 July 2013 (10 years old)
Launch price (MSRP)$99.95 $229.99
Current price$296 (3x MSRP)$210 (0.9x MSRP)
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro K610M has 550% better value for money than FX 2700M.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores48192
Core clock speed530 MHz954 MHz
Number of transistors505 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate12.7215.68
Floating-point performance127.2 gflops376.3 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro FX 2700M and Quadro K610M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-HEMXM-A (3.0)

Memory

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 typeGDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz2600 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.14 GB/s20.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Technologies

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

Optimusno data+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12
Shader Model4.05
OpenGL3.34.5
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A+
CUDA1.1+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

FX 2700M 0.95
Quadro K610M 1.85
+94.7%

K610M outperforms FX 2700M by 95% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

FX 2700M 370
Quadro K610M 719
+94.3%

K610M outperforms FX 2700M by 94% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

FX 2700M 2799
Quadro K610M 5116
+82.8%

K610M outperforms FX 2700M by 83% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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 HD6−7
−100%
12
+100%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Hitman 3 0−1 3−4
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 2−3
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Hitman 3 0−1 3−4
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 2−3
Metro Exodus 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Hitman 3 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 1−2
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how FX 2700M and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • Quadro K610M is 100% faster than FX 2700M

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Quadro K610M is 200% faster than the FX 2700M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro K610M is ahead in 20 tests (80%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (20%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 0.95 1.85
Recency 14 August 2008 23 July 2013
Cost $99.95 $229.99
Chip lithography 65 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 30 Watt

The Quadro K610M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 2700M in performance tests.


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

User ratings

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


NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M
Quadro FX 2700M
NVIDIA Quadro K610M
Quadro K610M

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.1 9 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro FX 2700M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 14 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro K610M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

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