GeForce GT 610 vs GT 620M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 620M with GeForce GT 610, including specs and performance data.

GT 620M
2012
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
0.97
+34.7%

GT 620M outperforms GT 610 by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10981160
Place by popularitynot in top-10089
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency5.131.97
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGF108GF119
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date23 August 2012 (12 years ago)2 April 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$39.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 cores9648
Core clock speedUp to 625 MHz810 MHz
Boost clock speed715 MHzno data
Number of transistors585 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt29 Watt
Maximum GPU temperatureno data102 °C
Texture fill rate10.566.480
Floating-point processing power0.2534 TFLOPS0.1555 TFLOPS
ROPs44
TMUs168

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 sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 2.0PCI Express 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Heightno data2.7" (6.9 cm)
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB1024 MB
Memory bus widthUp to 128bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz1.8 GB/s
Memory bandwidthUp to 28.8 GB/s14.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI, VGA
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI++
HDCP++
Maximum VGA resolutionUp to 2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIno dataInternal

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray++
Optimus+-

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 API12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.2
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

GT 620M 0.97
+34.7%
GT 610 0.72

  • Other tests
    • Passmark
    • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
    • GeekBench 5 OpenCL

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.

GT 620M 434
+35.6%
GT 610 320

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.

GT 620M 738
+99.3%
GT 610 370

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.

GT 620M 2132
+66.3%
GT 610 1282

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 HD36
+50%
24−27
−50%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data1.67

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Atomic Heart 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Valorant 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Atomic Heart 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 24−27
+38.9%
18−20
−38.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Valorant 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Valorant 30−35
+52.4%
21−24
−52.4%
Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+50%
10−11
−50%
Valorant 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how GT 620M and GT 610 compete in popular games:

  • GT 620M is 50% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.97 0.72
Recency 23 August 2012 2 April 2012
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 29 Watt

GT 620M has a 34.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, and 93.3% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 620M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 610 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 620M is a notebook card while GeForce GT 610 is a desktop one.

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 GT 620M
GeForce GT 620M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 610
GeForce GT 610

Other comparisons

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.


3.3
453 votes

Rate GeForce GT 620M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1
2144 votes

Rate GeForce GT 610 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 620M or GeForce GT 610, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.