Quadro 410 vs Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire with Quadro 410, including specs and performance data.
HD 6970M Crossfire outperforms 410 by a whopping 693% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 491 | 1081 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.12 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 2.06 |
| Architecture | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Blackcomb XT | GK107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 6 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 7 August 2012 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 1920 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 680 MHz | 706 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2x1700 Million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 38 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 11.30 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.2711 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 176 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.26 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 | no data | 1x DVI, 1x DisplayPort |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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 | 94
+840%
| 10−12
−840%
|
| Full HD | 98
+717%
| 12−14
−717%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 12.42 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Fortnite | 50−55
+783%
|
6−7
−783%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+788%
|
8−9
−788%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+800%
|
3−4
−800%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
| World of Tanks | 130−140
+731%
|
16−18
−731%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 30−35
+700%
|
4−5
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+825%
|
4−5
−825%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+800%
|
4−5
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 70−75
+788%
|
8−9
−788%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+750%
|
4−5
−750%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+740%
|
5−6
−740%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 65−70
+713%
|
8−9
−713%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 16−18
+700%
|
2−3
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
This is how HD 6970M Crossfire and Quadro 410 compete in popular games:
- HD 6970M Crossfire is 840% faster in 900p
- HD 6970M Crossfire is 717% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.41 | 1.06 |
| Recency | 6 January 2011 | 7 August 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
HD 6970M Crossfire has a 693.4% higher aggregate performance score.
Quadro 410, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro 410 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6970M Crossfire is a notebook card while Quadro 410 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
