GeForce GT 610 vs Radeon R9 M390

Place in the ranking	467	1151
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	no data	1.97
Architecture	GCN (2012−2015)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Pitcairn	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	9 June 2015 (9 years ago)	2 April 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$39.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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	1024	48
Core clock speed	no data	810 MHz
Number of transistors	5000 Million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	102 °C
Texture fill rate	no data	6.480
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	8

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	large	no data
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	PCI Express 2.0
Interface	no data	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Height	no data	2.7" (6.9 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1024 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	1.8 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	no data	14.4 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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 Connectors	no data	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA
Multi monitor support	no data	+
Eyefinity	+	-
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync	+	-
HD3D	+	-
PowerTune	+	-
DualGraphics	+	-
ZeroCore	+	-
Switchable graphics	+	-
3D Blu-Ray	-	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	DirectX® 12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	4.4	4.2
OpenCL	Not Listed	1.1
Vulkan	-	N/A
Mantle	+	-
CUDA	-	+

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	42 +1300%	3−4 −1300%
4K	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	13.33
4K	no data	39.99

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
Valorant	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Dota 2	22 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Fortnite	55−60 +1300%	4−5 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Grand Theft Auto V	34 +1600%	2−3 −1600%
Metro Exodus	24−27 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +1150%	6−7 −1150%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24−27 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	33 +1550%	2−3 −1550%
Valorant	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
World of Tanks	140−150 +1300%	10−11 −1300%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35 +1450%	2−3 −1450%
Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Dota 2	35−40 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +1233%	3−4 −1233%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
Forza Horizon 5	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	75−80 +1150%	6−7 −1150%
Valorant	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Grand Theft Auto V	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	45−50 +1400%	3−4 −1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9	0−1
World of Tanks	65−70 +1280%	5−6 −1280%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 +2100%	1−2 −2100%
Forza Horizon 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Valorant	24−27 +1100%	2−3 −1100%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Grand Theft Auto V	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Fortnite	10−11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 5	7−8	0−1
Valorant	10−11	0−1

This is how R9 M390 and GT 610 compete in popular games:

R9 M390 is 1300% faster in 1080p
R9 M390 is 2000% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.35	0.80
Recency	9 June 2015	2 April 2012
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1024 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm

R9 M390 has a 1068.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 610 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M390 is a notebook card while GeForce GT 610 is a desktop one.

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