AMD Radeon R5 M240 vs NVIDIA Quadro K610M
Comparative analysis of AMD Radeon R5 M240 and NVIDIA Quadro K610M 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 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s).
Differences
Reasons to consider the AMD Radeon R5 M240
- Videocard is newer: launch date 1 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 2% higher core clock speed: 1000 MHz vs 980 MHz
- Around 31% higher texture fill rate: 20.6 GTexel / s vs 15.68 GTexel / s
- Around 67% higher pipelines: 320 vs 192
- Around 75% better floating-point performance: 659.2 gflops vs 376.3 gflops
- 3.5x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 6975 vs 1995
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3249 vs 3195
- Around 2% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3249 vs 3195
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 18 September 2014 vs 23 July 2013 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz vs 980 MHz |
| Texture fill rate | 20.6 GTexel / s vs 15.68 GTexel / s |
| Pipelines | 320 vs 192 |
| Floating-point performance | 659.2 gflops vs 376.3 gflops |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6975 vs 1995 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3249 vs 3195 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3249 vs 3195 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA Quadro K610M
- Around 56% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 713 vs 458
- Around 45% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 218 vs 150
- Around 56% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames): 2253 vs 1444
- Around 56% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps): 2253 vs 1444
- Around 27% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames): 1123 vs 881
- Around 27% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps): 1123 vs 881
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 713 vs 458 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 218 vs 150 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 2253 vs 1444 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 2253 vs 1444 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1123 vs 881 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1123 vs 881 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: AMD Radeon R5 M240
GPU 2: NVIDIA Quadro K610M
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | AMD Radeon R5 M240 | NVIDIA Quadro K610M |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 458 | 713 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 150 | 218 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 6975 | 1995 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1444 | 2253 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1444 | 2253 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3249 | 3195 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3249 | 3195 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 881 | 1123 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 881 | 1123 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 182.093 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 20.881 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| AMD Radeon R5 M240 | NVIDIA Quadro K610M | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 | Kepler 2.0 |
| Code name | Jet | GK208 |
| Design | AMD Radeon R5 200 Series | |
| Launch date | 18 September 2014 | 23 July 2013 |
| Place in performance rating | 1298 | 1300 |
| Type | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $229.99 | |
| Price now | $75 | |
| Value for money (0-100) | 11.43 | |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 980 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 659.2 gflops | 376.3 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Pipelines | 320 | 192 |
| Texture fill rate | 20.6 GTexel / s | 15.68 GTexel / s |
| Transistor count | 1,040 million | 1270 Million |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 30 Watt | |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Display Port | 1.2 | |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | Not Listed | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Laptop size | medium sized | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 11 | 12 |
| Mantle | ||
| OpenCL | Not Listed | |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.5 |
| Shader Model | 5 | |
| Vulkan | ||
Memory |
||
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 20.8 GB / s |
| Memory type | Not Listed | GDDR5 |
| Shared memory | 0 | 0 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | |
| Memory clock speed | 2600 MHz | |
Technologies |
||
| AMD Eyefinity | ||
| AppAcceleration | ||
| DualGraphics | ||
| Enduro | ||
| HD3D | ||
| Powerplay | ||
| PowerTune | ||
| Switchable graphics | ||
| ZeroCore | ||
| 3D Vision Pro | ||
| Mosaic | ||
| nView Display Management | ||
| Optimus | ||