GeForce GT 610 vs Radeon R9 Nano
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 Nano and GeForce GT 610, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 Nano outperforms GT 610 by a whopping 2436% 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 | 308 | 1206 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 4.76 | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 8.93 | 2.12 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Fiji | GF119 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 27 August 2015 (10 years ago) | 2 April 2012 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $39.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R9 Nano has 47500% better value for money than GT 610.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 4096 | 48 |
| Compute units | 64 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 810 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1000 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,900 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 102 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 256.0 | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | 8.192 TFLOPS | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 4 |
| TMUs | 256 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 128 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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | None |
| Bridgeless CrossFire | + | - |
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 | High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) | DDR3 |
| High bandwidth memory (HBM) | + | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1024 MB |
| Memory bus width | 4096 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 500 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 512 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| 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.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FRTC | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 91
+2933%
| 3−4
−2933%
|
| 4K | 46
+4500%
| 1−2
−4500%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 7.13
+86.9%
| 13.33
−86.9%
|
| 4K | 14.11
+183%
| 39.99
−183%
|
- R9 Nano has 87% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R9 Nano has 183% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+2825%
|
4−5
−2825%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+2825%
|
4−5
−2825%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2575%
|
4−5
−2575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+2567%
|
3−4
−2567%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+2920%
|
5−6
−2920%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120
+2825%
|
4−5
−2825%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+2578%
|
9−10
−2578%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+2750%
|
4−5
−2750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2575%
|
4−5
−2575%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70
+3150%
|
2−3
−3150%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80
+3700%
|
2−3
−3700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+2567%
|
3−4
−2567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 55−60
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+2920%
|
5−6
−2920%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 85−90
+2733%
|
3−4
−2733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+2750%
|
4−5
−2750%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70
+3250%
|
2−3
−3250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+2667%
|
3−4
−2667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+2567%
|
3−4
−2567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+2920%
|
5−6
−2920%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110
+2575%
|
4−5
−2575%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+4200%
|
1−2
−4200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+2880%
|
5−6
−2880%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+2783%
|
6−7
−2783%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+2586%
|
7−8
−2586%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+2850%
|
2−3
−2850%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50
+4700%
|
1−2
−4700%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+2875%
|
4−5
−2875%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+3100%
|
1−2
−3100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+3400%
|
2−3
−3400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 0−1 |
This is how R9 Nano and GT 610 compete in popular games:
- R9 Nano is 2933% faster in 1080p
- R9 Nano is 4500% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 20.29 | 0.80 |
| Recency | 27 August 2015 | 2 April 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1024 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 175 Watt | 29 Watt |
R9 Nano has a 2436% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GT 610, on the other hand, has 503% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 Nano is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 610 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.
