GeForce 610M vs Quadro M500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M500M with GeForce 610M, including specs and performance data.
M500M outperforms 610M by a whopping 301% 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 | 838 | 1231 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 7.21 | 4.49 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 1 December 2011 (14 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 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 738 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 12 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 | 5.904 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8632 TFLOPS | 0.1417 TFLOPS |
| Video decoders | no data | H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 128 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | Up to 14.4 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 |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | Up to 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Optimus | + | + |
| 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 API |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | 5.0 | + |
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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.
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.
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 | 15
+400%
| 3−4
−400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+58.6%
|
27−30
−58.6%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+170%
|
20−22
−170%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+58.6%
|
27−30
−58.6%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+133%
|
12−14
−133%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+58.6%
|
27−30
−58.6%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how Quadro M500M and GeForce 610M compete in popular games:
- Quadro M500M is 400% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M500M is 425% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, Quadro M500M surpassed GeForce 610M in all 29 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.81 | 0.70 |
| Recency | 27 April 2016 | 1 December 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 12 Watt |
Quadro M500M has a 301% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 610M, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.
The Quadro M500M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 610M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro M500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce 610M 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.
