Quadro K610M vs GeForce GTS 360M

Place in the ranking	943	916
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.22
Power efficiency	3.04	4.29
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)
GPU code name	GT215	GK208
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	7 January 2010 (15 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 cores	96	192
Core clock speed	550 MHz	980 MHz
Number of transistors	727 million	915 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	38 Watt	30 Watt
Texture fill rate	17.60	15.68
Floating-point processing power	0.2757 TFLOPS	0.3763 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	413	no data
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	32	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	large	medium sized
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	MXM-II	MXM-A (3.0)
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data
SLI options	+	-
MXM Type	MXM 3.0 Type-B	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	GDDR5	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 2000 MHz	650 MHz
Memory bandwidth	57.6 GB/s	20.8 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 Connectors	Single Link DVILVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortVGA	No outputs
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
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	-	+
Power management	8.0	no data
3D Vision Pro	no data	+
Mosaic	no data	+
nView Display Management	no data	+
Optimus	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.5
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/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.

GTS 360M 1.68

Quadro K610M 1.87
+11.3%

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.

GTS 360M 644

Quadro K610M 718
+11.5%

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.

GTS 360M 5522
+7.9%

Quadro K610M 5116

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:

900p	18 +0%	18−21 +0%
Full HD	21 +90.9%	11 −90.9%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

20.91

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Elden Ring	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Elden Ring	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Fortnite	8−9 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 −11.8%	18−20 +11.8%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
World of Tanks	30−35 −8.8%	35−40 +8.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Dota 2	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	12−14 −8.3%	12−14 +8.3%
Forza Horizon 4	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 −11.8%	18−20 +11.8%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring	0−1	1−2
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	10−12 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
World of Tanks	10−11 −20%	12−14 +20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Valorant	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Elden Ring	0−1	0−1
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	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Fortnite	0−1	0−1

This is how GTS 360M and Quadro K610M compete in popular games:

A tie in 900p
GTS 360M is 91% faster in 1080p

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

in Metro Exodus, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Quadro K610M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Quadro K610M is ahead in 21 test (44%)
there's a draw in 27 tests (56%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.68	1.87
Recency	7 January 2010	23 July 2013
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	38 Watt	30 Watt

Quadro K610M has a 11.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K610M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 360M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 360M is a notebook graphics 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.