ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 vs Quadro K610M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K610M and Mobility FireGL V5700, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro K610M
2013
1 GB GDDR5, 30 Watt
1.87
+450%

K610M outperforms ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 by a whopping 450% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9161300
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.22no data
Power efficiency4.29no data
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGK208M86
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date23 July 2013 (11 years ago)7 January 2008 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229.99 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 cores192120
Core clock speed980 MHz600 MHz
Number of transistors915 million378 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30 Wattno data
Texture fill rate15.684.800
Floating-point processing power0.3763 TFLOPS0.144 TFLOPS
ROPs84
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 sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed650 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth20.8 GB/s22.4 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Display Port1.2no data

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 compatibility

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

DirectX1210.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
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.

Quadro K610M 1.87
+450%
ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 0.34

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.

Quadro K610M 5116
+403%
ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 1017

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 HD11
+450%
2−3
−450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p20.91no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Elden Ring 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 3−4 0−1
Elden Ring 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Fortnite 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
World of Tanks 35−40
+185%
12−14
−185%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+171%
7−8
−171%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
World of Tanks 12−14
+500%
2−3
−500%

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
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Valorant 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how Quadro K610M and ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 compete in popular games:

  • Quadro K610M is 450% faster in 1080p

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Quadro K610M is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Quadro K610M is ahead in 27 tests (84%)
  • there's a draw in 5 tests (16%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.87 0.34
Recency 23 July 2013 7 January 2008
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm

Quadro K610M has a 450% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro K610M is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility FireGL V5700 in performance tests.


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 K610M
Quadro K610M
ATI Mobility FireGL V5700
Mobility FireGL V5700

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.


2.9 26 votes

Rate Quadro K610M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 1 vote

Rate Mobility FireGL V5700 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.