Quadro K610M vs Radeon R9 290

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 290 with Quadro K610M, including specs and performance data.

R9 290
2013
4 GB GDDR5, 275 Watt
20.19
+1034%

R9 290 outperforms K610M by a whopping 1034% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking271922
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.740.22
Power efficiency5.264.25
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameHawaiiGK208
Market segmentDesktopMobile workstation
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 $229.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

R9 290 has 3418% better value for money than Quadro K610M.

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 cores2560192
Core clock speed947 MHz980 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate151.515.68
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.3763 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs16016

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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinno data

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width512 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz650 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s20.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan1.2.131+
CUDA-+

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.

R9 290 20.19
+1034%
Quadro K610M 1.78

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.

R9 290 8093
+1033%
Quadro K610M 714

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.

R9 290 11860
+1470%
Quadro K610M 756

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 HD120−130
+991%
11
−991%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.33
+529%
20.91
−529%
  • R9 290 has 529% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
World of Tanks 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
World of Tanks 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R9 290 and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:

  • R9 290 is 991% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 46 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 20.19 1.78
Recency 5 November 2013 23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 30 Watt

R9 290 has a 1034.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro K610M, on the other hand, has 816.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro K610M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while Quadro K610M is a mobile 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 R9 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA Quadro K610M
Quadro K610M

Other comparisons

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.


4.1 576 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 27 votes

Rate Quadro K610M 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.