ATI Radeon 7200 vs Quadro K610M
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 923 | 1546 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.22 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 4.26 | no data |
| Architecture | Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015) | Rage 6 (2000−2007) |
| GPU code name | GK208 | R100 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 23 July 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 April 2000 (24 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229.99 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 980 MHz | 166 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 915 million | 30 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 15.68 | 1 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3763 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 2 |
| TMUs | 16 | 6 |
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) | AGP 4x |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 32 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 650 MHz | 166 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 20.8 GB/s | 5.312 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | 1x VGA |
| 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 | 7.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 1.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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.
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 | 11 | no data |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 20.91 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | no data |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | no data |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | no data |
| Dota 2 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | no data |
| Fortnite | 9−10 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | no data |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | no data |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 8−9 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9 | no data |
| World of Tanks | 35−40 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | no data |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | no data |
| Dota 2 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10 | no data |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20 | no data |
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | no data |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | no data |
| World of Tanks | 12−14 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7 | no data |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6 | no data |
| Valorant | 7−8 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18 | no data |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | no data |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6 | no data |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16 | no data |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | no data |
| Dota 2 | 16−18 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | no data |
| Fortnite | 0−1 | no data |
| Valorant | 2−3 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 23 July 2013 | 1 April 2000 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 23 Watt |
Quadro K610M has an age advantage of 13 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
ATI 7200, on the other hand, has 30.4% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Quadro K610M and Radeon 7200. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Quadro K610M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon 7200 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
