Quadro K610M vs GeForce GT 630

Place in the ranking	934	923
Place by popularity	80	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.08	0.22
Power efficiency	1.86	4.27
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code name	GF108	GK208
Market segment	Desktop	Mobile workstation
Release date	15 May 2012 (12 years ago)	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$99.99	$229.99

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

Quadro K610M has 175% better value for money than GT 630.

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	96	192
Core clock speed	810 MHz	980 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.96	15.68
Floating-point processing power	0.311 TFLOPS	0.3763 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	16	16

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 size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	MXM-A (3.0)
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	650 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	20.8 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Display Port	no data	1.2

Supported technologies

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

Optimus	-	+
3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	+
CUDA	2.1	+

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 630 1.70

Quadro K610M 1.80
+5.9%

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 630 676

Quadro K610M 714
+5.6%

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 630 810
+7.2%

Quadro K610M 756

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 630 2452
+22.8%

Quadro K610M 1997

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GT 630 2430
+30.2%

Quadro K610M 1867

GeekBench 5 CUDA

GT 630 1715
+14%

Quadro K610M 1504

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

10−12

−10%

11
+10%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

10.00

+109%

20.91
−109%

GT 630 has 109% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Fortnite	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Metro Exodus	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
World of Tanks	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Dota 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
World of Tanks	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Fortnite	0−1	0−1
Valorant	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

This is how GT 630 and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:

Quadro K610M is 10% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 46 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.70	1.80
Recency	15 May 2012	23 July 2013
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	65 Watt	30 Watt

GT 630 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Quadro K610M, on the other hand, has a 5.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 116.7% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 630 and Quadro K610M.

Be aware that GeForce GT 630 is a desktop card while Quadro K610M is a mobile workstation one.

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