Quadro 410 vs Radeon RX 560 Mobile

Place in the ranking	416	1073
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	5.67	0.06
Power efficiency	14.31	2.07
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	Baffin	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	5 January 2017 (7 years ago)	7 August 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99.99	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 560 Mobile has 9350% 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 cores	896	192
Core clock speed	1175 MHz	706 MHz
Boost clock speed	1275 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,000 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	38 Watt
Texture fill rate	58.97	11.30
Floating-point processing power	1.887 TFLOPS	0.2711 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	56	16

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
Interface	MXM-B (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	176 mm
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	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1500 MHz	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	96 GB/s	14.26 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 outputs

1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	-	3.0

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

43
+975%

4−5

−975%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

2.33

37.25

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

16−18
+1600%

1−2

−1600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +1100%	3−4 −1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Far Cry 5	33 +1000%	3−4 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +933%	3−4 −933%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +971%	7−8 −971%
Hitman 3	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +900%	6−7 −900%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +933%	3−4 −933%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1017%	6−7 −1017%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Battlefield 5	35−40 +1100%	3−4 −1100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Far Cry 5	28 +1300%	2−3 −1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	30−35 +933%	3−4 −933%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +971%	7−8 −971%
Hitman 3	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +900%	6−7 −900%
Metro Exodus	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−35 +933%	3−4 −933%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	27−30 +1350%	2−3 −1350%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1017%	6−7 −1017%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Far Cry 5	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
Forza Horizon 4	75−80 +971%	7−8 −971%
Hitman 3	21−24 +950%	2−3 −950%
Horizon Zero Dawn	60−65 +900%	6−7 −900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	35−40 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20 +900%	2−3 −900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65−70 +1017%	6−7 −1017%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

30−35
+933%

3−4

−933%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6	0−1
Far Cry 5	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Forza Horizon 4	50−55 +960%	5−6 −960%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Metro Exodus	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +914%	7−8 −914%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

18−20
+1800%

1−2

−1800%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55 +920%	5−6 −920%
Metro Exodus	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5−6	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+900%

1−2

−900%

This is how RX 560 Mobile and Quadro 410 compete in popular games:

RX 560 Mobile is 975% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	11.29	1.13
Recency	5 January 2017	7 August 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	55 Watt	38 Watt

RX 560 Mobile has a 899.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Quadro 410, on the other hand, has 44.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 560 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 410 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 560 Mobile is a notebook 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.