Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs Radeon HD 8510G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8510G with Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms HD 8510G by a whopping 2625% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1128 | 222 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.89 | 22.51 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Devastator | TU106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 23 May 2013 (11 years ago) | 27 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
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 | 384 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 554 MHz | 945 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 720 MHz | 1380 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 10,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.28 | 198.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.553 TFLOPS | 6.359 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 24 | 144 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 288 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 36 |
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 | large |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 3.0 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 type | System Shared | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 448.0 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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 | 3−4
−3067%
| 95
+3067%
|
| 4K | 3−4
−2833%
| 88
+2833%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2167%
|
65−70
+2167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2600%
|
50−55
+2600%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2167%
|
65−70
+2167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2600%
|
50−55
+2600%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1860%
|
95−100
+1860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1100%
|
95−100
+1100%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−442%
|
160−170
+442%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−2167%
|
65−70
+2167%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−1026%
|
250−260
+1026%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2600%
|
50−55
+2600%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−843%
|
132
+843%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 120−130 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1860%
|
95−100
+1860%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1100%
|
95−100
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2080%
|
109
+2080%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−442%
|
160−170
+442%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−2600%
|
50−55
+2600%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−764%
|
121
+764%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−1860%
|
95−100
+1860%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1100%
|
95−100
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1020%
|
56
+1020%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−442%
|
160−170
+442%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 120−130 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 5−6
−3360%
|
170−180
+3360%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−1844%
|
170−180
+1844%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 55−60 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−3100%
|
60−65
+3100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−4100%
|
40−45
+4100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 1−2
−5800%
|
55−60
+5800%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−207%
|
45−50
+207%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−2780%
|
140−150
+2780%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2700%
|
27−30
+2700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1200%
|
24−27
+1200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1250%
|
27−30
+1250%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 75−80
+0%
|
75−80
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 88
+0%
|
88
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
This is how HD 8510G and RTX 3000 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX 3000 Mobile is 3067% faster in 1080p
- RTX 3000 Mobile is 2833% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1440p resolution and the Epic Preset, the RTX 3000 Mobile is 5800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 3000 Mobile is ahead in 33 tests (58%)
- there's a draw in 24 tests (42%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.83 | 22.62 |
| Recency | 23 May 2013 | 27 May 2019 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 80 Watt |
HD 8510G has 128.6% lower power consumption.
RTX 3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 2625.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 166.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8510G in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8510G is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
