Quadro 410 vs Radeon R7 260X

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260X with Quadro 410, including specs and performance data.

R7 260X
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
8.26
+631%

R7 260X outperforms 410 by a whopping 631% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5011068
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.380.06
Power efficiency5.132.12
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameBonaireGK107
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)7 August 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$139 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R7 260X has 5533% better value for money than Quadro 410.

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 cores896192
Core clock speedno data706 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt38 Watt
Texture fill rate61.6011.30
Floating-point processing power1.971 TFLOPS0.2711 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs5616

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length170 mm176 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data891 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 GB/s14.26 GB/s

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan-1.1.126
CUDA-3.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

R7 260X 8.26
+631%
Quadro 410 1.13

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.

R7 260X 3188
+630%
Quadro 410 437

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.26 1.13
Recency 8 October 2013 7 August 2012
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 38 Watt

R7 260X has a 631% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro 410, on the other hand, has 202.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 260X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 410 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260X is a desktop card while Quadro 410 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 260X
Radeon R7 260X
NVIDIA Quadro 410
Quadro 410

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 389 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 13 votes

Rate Quadro 410 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.