FirePro W6150M vs Radeon HD 7610M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7610M with FirePro W6150M, including specs and performance data.
W6150M outperforms HD 7610M by a whopping 274% 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 | 1012 | 646 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.78 | no data |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
| GPU code name | Whistler | Saturn |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2012 (13 years ago) | 12 November 2015 (10 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 | 400 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1075 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 716 million | 2,080 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 9.000 | 51.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.36 TFLOPS | 1.651 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 20 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 40 KB | 192 KB |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 256 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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 88 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
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.
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 | 14
−257%
| 50−55
+257%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−271%
|
130−140
+271%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 38
−268%
|
140−150
+268%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−261%
|
65−70
+261%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−271%
|
130−140
+271%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 18−20
−261%
|
65−70
+261%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
−233%
|
30−33
+233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
−271%
|
130−140
+271%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−250%
|
35−40
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
−267%
|
55−60
+267%
|
| Valorant | 7−8
−243%
|
24−27
+243%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−250%
|
14−16
+250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
−233%
|
10−11
+233%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−257%
|
50−55
+257%
|
| Valorant | 8−9
−238%
|
27−30
+238%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
This is how HD 7610M and W6150M compete in popular games:
- W6150M is 257% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.50 | 5.61 |
| Recency | 7 January 2012 | 12 November 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
W6150M has a 274% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The FirePro W6150M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7610M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 7610M is a notebook graphics card while FirePro W6150M 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.
