AMD Radeon 610M vs AMD Radeon R6 M255DX Comparison

AMD Radeon 610M and AMD Radeon R6 M255DX are both end-of-life integrated graphics solutions, but they represent vastly different eras of AMD’s mobile GPU design. The 610M is a modern 6 nm Mendocino chip built on RDNA 2.0, while the R6 M255DX is a legacy 28 nm GCN 1.0 part from the Gem System Hybrid generation. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance gap, with the 610M leading in the only shared test and occupying a higher percentile position among all GPUs. The following analysis breaks down the architectural divide, direct benchmark comparisons, and the specific strengths of each part based solely on the database’s measurements.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has an average benchmark score of 5444, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scores 4867. This places the 610M in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, compared to the 28th percentile for the R6 M255DX.

Q: In the head-to-head Vulkan test, what is the performance difference?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M scored 6353 in Geekbench Vulkan, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX scored 4867. The 610M wins by 30.5%, a substantial margin that reflects the architectural generational leap.

Q: Are both GPUs compatible with modern graphics APIs?

A: No. The AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX supports DirectX 12 (11_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.2.170, meaning the 610M has access to newer feature sets.

Q: How do the core configurations differ?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units, plus 2 ray tracing cores. The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has 320 shading units, 20 texture mapping units, and 8 render output units, but no ray tracing cores.

Q: Which GPU has a higher boost clock speed?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M boosts to 1900 MHz, whereas the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX boosts to only 855 MHz. The 610M’s base clock of 1500 MHz is also higher than the R6’s base of 780 MHz.

Q: What are the process nodes for each chip?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M uses a 6 nm process from TSMC, while the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX uses a 28 nm process from the same foundry. The R6 M255DX has a die size of 56 mm² and contains 690 million transistors.

Architecture Differences

The AMD Radeon 610M and AMD Radeon R6 M255DX are separated by more than just release dates; they belong to fundamentally different GPU architectures. The 610M is built on RDNA 2.0, the same architecture family used in modern discrete GPUs, while the R6 M255DX employs the older GCN 1.0 architecture, which debuted in 2012. This architectural gap influences everything from clock speeds to feature support.

The 610M’s chip, codenamed Mendocino, is fabricated on a 6 nm process node, enabling a die size of 100 mm². The R6 M255DX, based on the Jet chip, uses a 28 nm process, resulting in a smaller 56 mm² die but with a much lower transistor density. The database lists the R6 M255DX at 690 million transistors, while the 610M’s transistor count is not recorded. The 610M’s newer process allows for significantly higher clock frequencies: its base clock is 1500 MHz with a boost of 1900 MHz, whereas the R6 M255DX runs at a base of 780 MHz and boosts to 855 MHz.

In terms of compute resources, the R6 M255DX actually has more raw shading units (320) compared to the 610M (128). It also has more texture mapping units (20 vs. 8) and render output units (8 vs. 4). However, the 610M compensates with higher clocks and the inclusion of 2 ray tracing cores, which the R6 M255DX lacks entirely. The 610M’s FP32 performance is 486.4 GFLOPS, while the R6 M255DX reaches 547.2 GFLOPS, showing that raw unit count still matters for raw math throughput.

Feature support also diverges sharply. The 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R6 M255DX is limited to DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both GPUs have the same OpenGL 4.6 support. The 610M also utilizes a PCIe 4.0 x8 bus interface, whereas the R6 M255DX is listed with an IGP bus interface, reflecting its older hybrid system design. Neither GPU has a dedicated memory bus; both use System Shared memory with bandwidth described as System Dependent.

The production status for both is End-of-life. The 610M was released in 2022, while the R6 M255DX came out in 2014. The 610M has a listed predecessor (Vega II IGP) and successor (Navi III IGP), while the R6 M255DX has neither in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database includes a single direct comparison between the AMD Radeon 610M and the AMD Radeon R6 M255DX: the Geekbench Vulkan test. In this benchmark, the 610M scores 6353, while the R6 M255DX scores 4867. The delta percentage is 30.5%, meaning the 610M outperforms the older GPU by nearly a third in Vulkan compute workloads.

This result is consistent with the average benchmark scores for each GPU. The 610M’s average score of 5444 includes a Geekbench OpenCL score of 4535 and the Vulkan score of 6353. The R6 M255DX only has a Vulkan score of 4867 recorded, which also serves as its average. The 610M’s Vulkan score is notably higher than its OpenCL score, suggesting that its RDNA 2.0 architecture excels in Vulkan’s modern API environment. The R6 M255DX, with its older GCN 1.0 design, appears to be limited in that same test.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each GPU provides context for these scores. The 610M’s average score of 5444 sits near the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 (5467, delta -0.4%), the AMD Radeon R7 M365X (5416, delta 0.5%), the AMD Radeon R7 M440 (5483, delta -0.7%), and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M (5501, delta -1%). This places the 610M in a competitive tier with mid-range mobile GPUs from a few generations ago. The R6 M255DX’s average score of 4867 places it near the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 560M (4855, delta 0.2%), the NVIDIA GeForce 940MX (4844, delta 0.5%), the NVIDIA GeForce GTS 450 (4893, delta -0.5%), and the NVIDIA GeForce RTX 5060 Ti 8 GB (4901, delta -0.7%). The inclusion of a modern RTX card in that list is notable, but the R6’s score is clearly below the 610M’s tier.

In terms of wins, the 610M takes 1 win in the head-to-head comparison, while the R6 M255DX has 0 wins. There is no benchmark in the database where the R6 M255DX outperforms the 610M.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification in the database. The most obvious difference is the process node: the 610M uses a 6 nm process, while the R6 M255DX uses a 28 nm process. This leads to a die size of 100 mm² for the 610M and 56 mm² for the R6 M255DX. The R6 M255DX has a known transistor count of 690 million and a transistor density of 12.3M per mm², while the 610M’s transistor figures are not recorded.

Clock speeds favor the 610M decisively. The 610M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost clock of 1900 MHz. The R6 M255DX has a base clock of 780 MHz and a boost clock of 855 MHz. This represents a 121.5% higher base clock and a 122.2% higher boost clock for the 610M.

The shading unit count is reversed: the R6 M255DX has 320 shading units, while the 610M has 128. The same pattern holds for TMUs (20 vs. 8) and ROPs (8 vs. 4). However, the 610M includes 2 ray tracing cores, a feature entirely absent from the R6 M255DX. FP32 performance is higher on the R6 M255DX at 547.2 GFLOPS, compared to 486.4 GFLOPS for the 610M. The 610M also supports FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1), while the R6 M255DX has no recorded FP16 capability.

Memory configuration is identical in naming: both use System Shared memory with System Dependent bandwidth. The bus interface differs, with the 610M using PCIe 4.0 x8 and the R6 M255DX using an IGP interface. The 610M has a TDP of 15 W, while the R6 M255DX has no TDP listed. Both are IGP slot width and have Portable Device Dependent display outputs.

API support shows the 610M’s modern pedigree. It supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2) and Vulkan 1.4, while the R6 M255DX supports DirectX 12 (11_1) and Vulkan 1.2.170. Both support OpenGL 4.6. The power connectors are listed as None for the 610M, with no data for the R6 M255DX. Neither GPU has a suggested PSU.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Radeon 610M is the clear winner in the recorded benchmark data. It wins the sole head-to-head Vulkan test by 30.5%, and its average benchmark score of 5444 is 11.9% higher than the R6 M255DX’s 4867. The 610M also holds a higher percentile position (32nd vs. 28th), indicating that it performs better relative to the entire GPU landscape.

The 610M’s strengths lie in its modern architecture and feature set. With RDNA 2.0, a 6 nm process, and support for DirectX 12 Ultimate and Vulkan 1.4, the 610M is better suited for newer applications and APIs that leverage ray tracing and advanced shading features. Its higher clock speeds, despite fewer shading units, allow it to achieve strong Vulkan performance. For workloads that use modern graphics APIs, the 610M is the superior choice.

The AMD Radeon R6 M255DX has no benchmark wins in the database. However, its specification sheet shows that it has more shading units, TMUs, and ROPs than the 610M, along with higher FP32 throughput (547.2 GFLOPS vs. 486.4 GFLOPS). In theory, this could benefit older, simpler workloads that rely on raw shader count rather than API efficiency or clock speed. The R6 M255DX also has a smaller die size (56 mm² vs. 100 mm²), which could be relevant for legacy system integration.

In practical terms, the data suggests that the 610M is the better GPU for any modern use case, especially those involving Vulkan or DirectX 12 Ultimate. The R6 M255DX’s higher unit counts do not translate into a performance win in the recorded benchmarks, likely due to its older GCN architecture and much lower clocks. For users with legacy software that does not benefit from modern API features, the R6 M255DX’s raw compute may still function, but the 610M offers a more future-proof and faster experience across the board.