AMD Radeon HD 6410D IGP vs NVIDIA GeForce 410M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon HD 6410D IGP and NVIDIA GeForce 410M 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: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon HD 6410D IGP
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 month(s) later
- 3.3x more pipelines: 160 vs 48
- Around 29% better floating-point performance: 142.08 gflops vs 110.4 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 32 nm vs 40 nm
Launch date | 20 June 2011 vs 5 January 2011 |
Pipelines | 160 vs 48 |
Floating-point performance | 142.08 gflops vs 110.4 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm vs 40 nm |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 410M
- 2.6x more core clock speed: 1150 MHz vs 444 MHz
- Around 30% higher texture fill rate: 4.6 GTexel / s vs 3.55 GTexel / s
- 5.4x lower typical power consumption: 12 Watt vs 65 Watt
- Around 8% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 256 vs 237
- Around 9% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 127 vs 117
- Around 76% better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 1032 vs 587
- Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 494 vs 415
- Around 19% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 494 vs 415
- Around 80% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 1163 vs 646
- Around 80% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 1163 vs 646
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 1570 vs 1468
- Around 7% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 1570 vs 1468
Specifications (specs) | |
Core clock speed | 1150 MHz vs 444 MHz |
Texture fill rate | 4.6 GTexel / s vs 3.55 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 12 Watt vs 65 Watt |
Benchmarks | |
PassMark - G3D Mark | 256 vs 237 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 127 vs 117 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 1032 vs 587 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 494 vs 415 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 494 vs 415 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1163 vs 646 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1163 vs 646 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1570 vs 1468 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1570 vs 1468 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon HD 6410D IGP
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce 410M
PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
Name | AMD Radeon HD 6410D IGP | NVIDIA GeForce 410M |
---|---|---|
PassMark - G3D Mark | 237 | 256 |
PassMark - G2D Mark | 117 | 127 |
Geekbench - OpenCL | 587 | 1032 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 415 | 494 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 415 | 494 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 646 | 1163 |
GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 646 | 1163 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 1468 | 1570 |
GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 1468 | 1570 |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 2.846 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 86.519 | |
CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 7.048 |
Compare specifications (specs)
AMD Radeon HD 6410D IGP | NVIDIA GeForce 410M | |
---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Fermi 2.0 |
Code name | WinterPark | GF119 |
Launch date | 20 June 2011 | 5 January 2011 |
Place in performance rating | 1562 | 1563 |
Type | Desktop | Laptop |
Technical info |
||
Core clock speed | 444 MHz | 1150 MHz |
Floating-point performance | 142.08 gflops | 110.4 gflops |
Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 40 nm |
Pipelines | 160 | 48 |
Texture fill rate | 3.55 GTexel / s | 4.6 GTexel / s |
Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 65 Watt | 12 Watt |
Transistor count | 1,180 million | 292 million |
CUDA cores | 48 | |
Gigaflops | 73 | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
Display Connectors | No outputs | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
HDMI | ||
Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | |
Multi monitor support | ||
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | |
API support |
||
DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12.0 (11_0) |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 1 |
Memory |
||
Memory type | System Shared | DDR3 |
Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB / s | |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | |
Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
CUDA | ||
Power management | 8.0 |