RTX A2000 vs GeForce GT 610
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 610 with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.
RTX A2000 outperforms GT 610 by a whopping 4205% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1151 | 145 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 89.67 |
| Power efficiency | 1.95 | 34.80 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2024) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | GA106 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 April 2012 (12 years ago) | 10 August 2021 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $39.99 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
RTX A2000 has 896600% better value for money than GT 610.
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 | 48 | 3328 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 562 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 12,000 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 102 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 6.480 | 124.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1555 TFLOPS | 7.987 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 48 |
| TMUs | 8 | 104 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 104 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 26 |
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 | PCI Express 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | 167 mm |
| Height | 2.7" (6.9 cm) | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1024 MB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1.8 GB/s | 1500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | 288.0 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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA | 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
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 | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.6 |
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.
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 HD | 2−3
−4600%
| 94
+4600%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−4400%
| 45
+4400%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 29 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 20.00
−319%
| 4.78
+319%
|
| 1440p | 39.99
−301%
| 9.98
+301%
|
| 4K | no data | 15.48 |
- RTX A2000 has 319% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- RTX A2000 has 301% lower cost per frame in 1440p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 84
+0%
|
84
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 106
+0%
|
106
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 136
+0%
|
136
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 129
+0%
|
129
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 109
+0%
|
109
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+0%
|
90−95
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 58
+0%
|
58
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 79
+0%
|
79
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 56
+0%
|
56
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
This is how GT 610 and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:
- RTX A2000 is 4600% faster in 1080p
- RTX A2000 is 4400% faster in 1440p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 54 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.79 | 34.01 |
| Recency | 2 April 2012 | 10 August 2021 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1024 MB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 29 Watt | 70 Watt |
GT 610 has 141.4% lower power consumption.
RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 4205.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 610 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 610 is a desktop card while RTX A2000 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
