Radeon RX 6300 vs GeForce 410M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 410M with Radeon RX 6300, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 410M
2011
Up to 512 MB DDR3, 12 Watt
0.66

RX 6300 outperforms 410M by a whopping 2027% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1182369
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.8130.37
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGF119Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (13 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)

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 cores48768
Core clock speed575 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2040 MHz
Number of transistors292 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt32 Watt
Texture fill rate4.60097.92
Floating-point processing power0.1104 TFLOPS3.133 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs432
TMUs848
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x4
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 512 MB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit32 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s64 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI2x HDMI 2.1
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL+4.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
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.

GeForce 410M 0.66
RX 6300 14.04
+2027%

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.

GeForce 410M 255
RX 6300 5418
+2025%

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 HD8
−2025%
170−180
+2025%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−1991%
230−240
+1991%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−1900%
600−650
+1900%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−1991%
230−240
+1991%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−1900%
600−650
+1900%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2025%
85−90
+2025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1900%
100−105
+1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−1991%
230−240
+1991%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−2000%
210−220
+2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−1900%
600−650
+1900%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1900%
120−130
+1900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1900%
60−65
+1900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%

This is how GeForce 410M and RX 6300 compete in popular games:

  • RX 6300 is 2025% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.66 14.04
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 32 Watt

GeForce 410M has 166.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6300, on the other hand, has a 2027.3% higher aggregate performance score, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6300 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 410M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 410M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6300 is a desktop one.


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.


NVIDIA GeForce 410M
GeForce 410M
AMD Radeon RX 6300
Radeon RX 6300

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.


3 264 votes

Rate GeForce 410M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 27 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6300 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.