Radeon Pro W6800 vs HD 6510G2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6510G2 with Radeon Pro W6800, including specs and performance data.
Pro W6800 outperforms HD 6510G2 by a whopping 3950% 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 | 1103 | 77 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 10.66 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.85 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | no data | Navi 21 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 8 June 2021 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 400 | 3840 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 2075 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2320 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 26,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 250 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 556.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 17.82 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 96 |
| TMUs | no data | 240 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 60 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 960 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 768 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 4 MB |
| L3 Cache | no data | 128 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 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 | no data | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 32 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 512.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 data | 6x mini-DisplayPort |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
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.
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.
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 | 3−4
−4467%
| 137
+4467%
|
| 1440p | 2−3
−5700%
| 116
+5700%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−4100%
| 84
+4100%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 16.42 |
| 1440p | no data | 19.39 |
| 4K | no data | 26.77 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3800%
|
110−120
+3800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−14900%
|
150−160
+14900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3800%
|
110−120
+3800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3400%
|
70
+3400%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−6900%
|
210−220
+6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2571%
|
180−190
+2571%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1811%
|
170−180
+1811%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−715%
|
260−270
+715%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−14900%
|
150−160
+14900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−896%
|
270−280
+896%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3800%
|
110−120
+3800%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−519%
|
99
+519%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3150%
|
65
+3150%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
−6900%
|
210−220
+6900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2571%
|
180−190
+2571%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
−15000%
|
150−160
+15000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−7900%
|
160
+7900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1811%
|
170−180
+1811%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2743%
|
199
+2743%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−715%
|
260−270
+715%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−14900%
|
150−160
+14900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−3800%
|
110−120
+3800%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−438%
|
86
+438%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−2571%
|
180−190
+2571%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1811%
|
170−180
+1811%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−2143%
|
157
+2143%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−715%
|
260−270
+715%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
−6900%
|
210−220
+6900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−3250%
|
130−140
+3250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 8−9
−4263%
|
300−350
+4263%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
−1358%
|
170−180
+1358%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−15000%
|
300−350
+15000%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 60−65 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−6300%
|
64
+6300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−4833%
|
140−150
+4833%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−4950%
|
100−110
+4950%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−6600%
|
130−140
+6600%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−793%
|
125
+793%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−4700%
|
280−290
+4700%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−9300%
|
94
+9300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−3800%
|
75−80
+3800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3400%
|
70−75
+3400%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 250−260
+0%
|
250−260
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 121
+0%
|
121
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 171
+0%
|
171
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 99
+0%
|
99
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
This is how HD 6510G2 and Pro W6800 compete in popular games:
- Pro W6800 is 4467% faster in 1080p
- Pro W6800 is 5700% faster in 1440p
- Pro W6800 is 4100% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Pro W6800 is 15000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro W6800 performs better in 43 tests (73%)
- there's a draw in 16 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.19 | 48.20 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 8 June 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
Pro W6800 has a 3950% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 471% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W6800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6510G2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6510G2 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro W6800 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
