GeForce GT 610 vs Quadro FX 5600
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 5600 with GeForce GT 610, including specs and performance data.
FX 5600 outperforms GT 610 by an impressive 61% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1061 | 1182 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.01 |
| Power efficiency | 0.55 | 2.03 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | G80 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 March 2007 (18 years ago) | 2 April 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,999 | $39.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
FX 5600 and GT 610 have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 128 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 810 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 681 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 171 Watt | 29 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 102 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 38.40 | 6.480 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3456 TFLOPS | 0.1555 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 24 | 4 |
| TMUs | 32 | 8 |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI Express 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 254 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | no data | 2.7" (6.9 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 1024 MB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1.8 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| HDCP | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | Internal |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.2 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.21 | 0.75 |
| Recency | 5 March 2007 | 2 April 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 1024 MB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 171 Watt | 29 Watt |
FX 5600 has a 61.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
GT 610, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 125% more advanced lithography process, and 489.7% lower power consumption.
The Quadro FX 5600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 610 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 5600 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GT 610 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
