To calculate the index we compare the characteristics of graphics cards against their prices.
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) vs UHD Graphics 610
Price now
601$
Games supported
58%
- Interface PCIe 3.0 x1
- Core clock speed 300
- Max video memory System Shared
- Memory type DDR3/DDR4
- Memory clock speed System Shared
- Maximum resolution
- Interface
- Core clock speed 350
- Max video memory
- Memory type
- Memory clock speed
- Maximum resolution
Price now
no data
Games supported
58%
General info
Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.
| Place in performance rating | 743 | 750 |
| Value for money | 1.34 | no data |
| Architecture | Gen. 9 Kaby Lake (2016−2019) | Gen. 11 (2021) |
| GPU code name | Kaby Lake GT1 | Gen. 11 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 January 2019 (4 years old) | 11 January 2021 (2 years old) |
| Current price | $601 | no data |
Value for money
no data
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 12 | 24 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 950 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 4.8 - 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 12.60 | no data |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements
Information on UHD Graphics 610 and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x1 | no data |
Memory
Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | DDR3/DDR4 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
Video outputs and ports
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 | no data |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | + |
API support
APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.1.103 | no data |
Benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.
Overall score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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.
- 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
- 3DMark Fire Strike Score
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 16%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) outperforms UHD Graphics 610 by 58% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) outperforms UHD Graphics 610 by 59% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.
3DMark Fire Strike Score
Benchmark coverage: 13%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) outperforms UHD Graphics 610 by 69% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.
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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
Benchmark coverage: 13%
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) outperforms UHD Graphics 610 by 67% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 8
−50%
| 12
+50%
|
Popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
−100%
|
8
+100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance rating | 2.16 | 2.12 |
| Recency | 1 January 2019 | 11 January 2021 |
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 12 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 10 nm |
| Thermal design power (TDP) | 15 Watt | 4 Watt |
Technical City couldn't decide between
and
The differences in performance seem too small.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
