UHD Graphics 610 vs Quadro FX 4800

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4800 with UHD Graphics 610, including specs and performance data.

FX 4800
2008
1536 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
2.56
+35.4%

FX 4800 outperforms UHD Graphics 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 ranking828912
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.05no data
Power efficiency1.178.67
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGT200BCoffee Lake GT1
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)3 April 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,799 no data

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 cores19296
Core clock speed602 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data900 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million189 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm14 nm+++
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate38.5310.80
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.1728 TFLOPS
ROPs242
TMUs6412

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16Ring Bus
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1536 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width384 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-VideoPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Quick Syncno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.3-

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.

FX 4800 2.56
+35.4%
UHD Graphics 610 1.89

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.

FX 4800 986
+35.4%
UHD Graphics 610 728

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 HD10−12
+25%
8
−25%

Cost per frame, $

1080p179.90no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

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

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 8
+0%
8
+0%
Metro Exodus 4
+0%
4
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8
+0%
8
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 6
+0%
6
+0%
Elden Ring 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 7
+0%
7
+0%
Fortnite 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10
+0%
10
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 3
+0%
3
+0%
Metro Exodus 2
+0%
2
+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 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Dota 2 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14
+0%
14
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
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

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 8−9
+0%
8−9
+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%
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 4800 and UHD Graphics 610 compete in popular games:

  • FX 4800 is 25% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 49 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.56 1.89
Recency 11 November 2008 3 April 2018
Chip lithography 55 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 15 Watt

FX 4800 has a 35.4% higher aggregate performance score.

UHD Graphics 610, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 4800 is our recommended choice as it beats the UHD Graphics 610 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 4800 is a workstation card while UHD Graphics 610 is a notebook 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 Quadro FX 4800
Quadro FX 4800
Intel UHD Graphics 610
UHD Graphics 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.


4 67 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 656 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 610 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.