AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe vs NVIDIA Quadro K510M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe and NVIDIA Quadro K510M videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark.
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe
- Videocard is newer: launch date 3 year(s) 2 month(s) later
- Around 29% higher core clock speed: 1090 MHz vs 846 MHz
- 4.3x more texture fill rate: 57.6 GTexel / s vs 13.54 GTexel / s
- 4.7x more pipelines: 896 vs 192
- 6.6x better floating-point performance: 2,150 gflops vs 324.9 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 14 nm vs 28 nm
- 4x more maximum memory size: 4 GB vs 1 GB
- 2.9x more memory clock speed: 7000 MHz vs 2400 MHz
- 4.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 5269 vs 1087
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2344 vs 2012
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3357 vs 3071
- 4.8x better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 5269 vs 1087
- Around 17% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2344 vs 2012
- Around 9% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3357 vs 3071
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 27 September 2016 vs 23 July 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 1090 MHz vs 846 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 57.6 GTexel / s vs 13.54 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 896 vs 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 2,150 gflops vs 324.9 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm vs 28 nm |
| Maximum memory size | 4 GB vs 1 GB |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz vs 2400 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5269 vs 1087 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2344 vs 2012 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 vs 3071 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5269 vs 1087 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2344 vs 2012 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 vs 3071 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K510M
- 2.7x lower typical power consumption: 30 Watt vs 80 Watt
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt vs 80 Watt |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K510M
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe | NVIDIA Quadro K510M |
|---|---|---|
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 44.281 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 785.276 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 3.951 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 65.944 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 196.307 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 5269 | 1087 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2344 | 2012 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3357 | 3071 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 5269 | 1087 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2344 | 2012 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3357 | 3071 |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 641 | |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 441 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe | NVIDIA Quadro K510M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 | Kepler 2.0 |
| Code name | Baffin | GK208 |
| Launch date | 27 September 2016 | 23 July 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 821 | 823 |
| Type | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
Technical info |
||
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | |
| Core clock speed | 1090 MHz | 846 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 2,150 gflops | 324.9 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 896 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 57.6 GTexel / s | 13.54 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 80 Watt | 30 Watt |
| Transistor count | 3,000 million | 1270 Million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (12_0) | 12 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB / s | 19.2 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz | 2400 MHz |
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare AMD Radeon E9260 PCIe with others
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon HD 7790
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
NVIDIAQuadro K510M
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon R5 235X OEM
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon PRO WX 2100
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
IntelIris Plus Graphics 645
AMDRadeon E9260 PCIe vs
AMDRadeon Vega 9
