Radeon 610M vs R6 (Mullins)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R6 (Mullins) and Radeon 610M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
610M outperforms R6 (Mullins) by a whopping 392% 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 | 1264 | 817 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 84 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 14.86 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) |
| GPU code name | Mullins | Dragon Range |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (11 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 | 128 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2200 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 17.60 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.5632 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 2 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| 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 | no data | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System Shared |
| 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 data | Portable Device Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.7 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.3 |
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 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 | 2−3
−500%
| 12
+500%
|
| 1440p | 5−6
−400%
| 25
+400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 14 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−64.3%
|
45−50
+64.3%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 18−20
−206%
|
55−60
+206%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 13 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 9 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−64.3%
|
45−50
+64.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−142%
|
27−30
+142%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 12 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−200%
|
14−16
+200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−60%
|
8−9
+60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8
+33.3%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−64.3%
|
45−50
+64.3%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 3−4
−633%
|
21−24
+633%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−350%
|
27−30
+350%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−367%
|
14−16
+367%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Valorant | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how R6 (Mullins) and Radeon 610M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 610M is 500% faster in 1080p
- Radeon 610M is 400% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 610M is 633% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 610M performs better in 32 tests (63%)
- there's a draw in 19 tests (37%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.59 | 2.90 |
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 3 January 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 5 nm |
Radeon 610M has a 391.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 610M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R6 (Mullins) in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
