Quadro K610M vs ATI FirePro M5800

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro M5800 and Quadro K610M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

ATI M5800
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 26 Watt
1.44

K610M outperforms ATI M5800 by a significant 29% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking999914
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.21
Power efficiency3.804.25
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code nameMadisonGK208
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 March 2010 (14 years ago)23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$229.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores400192
Core clock speed650 MHz980 MHz
Number of transistors627 million915 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)26 Watt30 Watt
Texture fill rate13.0015.68
Floating-point processing power0.52 TFLOPS0.3763 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2016

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedmedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16MXM-A (3.0)

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz650 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s20.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Portno data1.2

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus-+
3D Vision Prono data+
Mosaicno data+
nView Display Managementno data+
Optimusno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12
Shader Model5.05.1
OpenGL4.44.5
OpenCL1.21.2
VulkanN/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. 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.

ATI M5800 1.44
Quadro K610M 1.86
+29.2%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

ATI M5800 3760
Quadro K610M 5116
+36.1%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD21
+90.9%
11
−90.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data20.91

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−66.7%
5−6
+66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−133%
7−8
+133%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−13.3%
16−18
+13.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−6.1%
35−40
+6.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−100%
4−5
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 1−2
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

This is how ATI M5800 and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:

  • ATI M5800 is 91% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro K610M is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro K610M is ahead in 35 tests (69%)
  • there's a draw in 16 tests (31%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.44 1.86
Recency 1 March 2010 23 July 2013
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 26 Watt 30 Watt

ATI M5800 has 15.4% lower power consumption.

Quadro K610M, on the other hand, has a 29.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro K610M is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5800 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI FirePro M5800
FirePro M5800
NVIDIA Quadro K610M
Quadro K610M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.8 9 votes

Rate FirePro M5800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 26 votes

Rate Quadro K610M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.