Radeon 610M vs Quadro M500M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro M500M with Radeon 610M, including specs and performance data.
M500M outperforms 610M by a small 7% 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 | 824 | 846 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 69 |
| Power efficiency | 7.15 | 13.38 |
| Architecture | Maxwell (2014−2017) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | GM108 | Dragon Range |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 27 April 2016 (9 years ago) | 3 January 2023 (2 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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 1029 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1124 MHz | 2200 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.98 | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.8632 TFLOPS | 0.5632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 2 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L1 Cache | 128 KB | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 2 MB |
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-A (3.0) | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 |
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 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | 1.3 |
| 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
3DMark Ice Storm GPU
Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.
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
+15.4%
| 13
−15.4%
|
| 1440p | 24−27
−4.2%
| 25
+4.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−478%
|
52
+478%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−322%
|
38
+322%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−75%
|
14
+75%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4.5%
|
40−45
−4.5%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−77.8%
|
16
+77.8%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+5.9%
|
50−55
−5.9%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−62.5%
|
13
+62.5%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
−100%
|
16
+100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−80%
|
9
+80%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
−30%
|
13
+30%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4.5%
|
40−45
−4.5%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+3.7%
|
27−30
−3.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
−50%
|
12
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+25%
|
8
−25%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4.5%
|
40−45
−4.5%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+5%
|
20−22
−5%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+4.2%
|
24−27
−4.2%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−135%
|
61
+135%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+7.7%
|
12−14
−7.7%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
This is how Quadro M500M and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- Quadro M500M is 15% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 610M is 4% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro M500M is 100% faster.
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 610M is 478% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Quadro M500M performs better in 23 tests (41%)
- Radeon 610M performs better in 10 tests (18%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (41%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.66 | 2.49 |
| Recency | 27 April 2016 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 30 Watt | 15 Watt |
Quadro M500M has a 6.8% higher aggregate performance score.
Radeon 610M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 460% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro M500M and Radeon 610M.
Be aware that Quadro M500M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon 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.
