AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA Quadro P400 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits cleanly between two APIs, and the AMD Radeon 610M claims victory in both recorded tests. In Geekbench OpenCL, the Radeon 610M scores 4535 against the Quadro P400's 4249, a 6.7% advantage. The gap widens considerably in Geekbench Vulkan, where the Radeon 610M posts 6353 versus 5119, a 24.1% margin. That means the AMD part is not merely faster; it is decisively stronger in the Vulkan workload, which typically reflects modern graphics API efficiency.

The Quadro P400's best showing is in OpenCL, where it trails by only 6.7%, but it still loses that test. There is no recorded benchmark where the P400 wins. The data therefore indicates that the Radeon 610M is the stronger choice for compute-oriented tasks measured by OpenCL and especially for Vulkan-based rendering or compute. The P400, by contrast, offers no recorded win in either API, making its role more about compatibility or specific workstation use cases rather than raw performance in these particular tests.

Looking at aggregate scores, the Radeon 610M averages 5444 across its benchmark results, whereas the Quadro P400 averages 4684. That places the AMD part in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs in the database, while the P400 sits in the 27th percentile. The percentile gap is modest, but the average score difference of roughly 760 points, about 16% higher for the AMD part, reinforces the pattern seen in the individual tests.

Architecture Differences

The two GPUs come from different architectural generations and manufacturers, which explains much of the behavioral gap. The AMD Radeon 610M uses the Mendocino chip built on RDNA 2.0, fabricated on a 6 nm process at TSMC. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 uses the GP107 chip based on Pascal, fabricated on a 14 nm process at Samsung. The process node difference is substantial: 6 nm versus 14 nm, which typically allows the AMD part to achieve higher efficiency per transistor, though the database does not provide a direct efficiency metric.

The Radeon 610M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) with a die size of 100 mm², while the P400 is a discrete single-slot card with a die size of 132 mm² and 3,300 million transistors, giving it a transistor density of 25.0M per mm². The AMD chip does not list a transistor count in the database, so density cannot be compared directly. The P400 draws 30 W TDP, while the Radeon 610M is rated at 15 W, reflecting its integrated nature and mobile positioning.

Shading resources differ significantly. The Radeon 610M has 128 shading units, 8 texture mapping units, and 4 render output units, plus 2 ray tracing cores. The Quadro P400 doubles those base counts with 256 shading units, 16 TMUs, and 16 ROPs, but it has no ray tracing cores. Despite having fewer shading units, the Radeon 610M's higher clock speeds, 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost, help it compete against the P400's 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost. The AMD part also supports RDNA 2.0 features including DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2, while the P400 is limited to DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1. Both support OpenGL 4.6 and Vulkan 1.4.

Memory architecture is fundamentally different. The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth, meaning its performance scales with the host platform's memory configuration. The P400 has 2 GB of dedicated GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth. That dedicated memory can be an advantage in workloads where system memory bandwidth is constrained, though the recorded benchmarks do not isolate this factor.

The P400 also lists a suggested PSU of 200 W and uses a PCIe 3.0 x16 interface, while the Radeon 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. The P400's display outputs are 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a, whereas the Radeon 610M's outputs are portable device dependent, reflecting its IGP status. The P400 has physical dimensions of 150 mm length and 69 mm height, while the Radeon 610M has no listed dimensions because it is integrated.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M has an average benchmark score of 5444, while the NVIDIA Quadro P400 averages 4684. The AMD part also ranks in the 32nd percentile of all GPUs, versus the P400's 27th percentile.

Q: How large is the Vulkan performance gap?

A: In Geekbench Vulkan, the Radeon 610M scores 6353 against the Quadro P400's 5119, a 24.1% advantage for the AMD part.

Q: Does the Quadro P400 win any recorded benchmark?

A: No. The database records two head-to-head tests, Geekbench OpenCL and Geekbench Vulkan, and the Quadro P400 loses both. The Radeon 610M wins 2 out of 2 comparisons.

Q: What memory configurations do the two GPUs use?

A: The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory with a system-dependent bus width and bandwidth. The Quadro P400 has 2 GB of GDDR5 on a 64-bit bus with 32.06 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which GPU supports DirectX 12 Ultimate?

A: The AMD Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate with feature level 12_2. The NVIDIA Quadro P400 supports DirectX 12 with feature level 12_1, which is a lower feature tier.

Q: How do the shading unit counts compare?

A: The Quadro P400 has 256 shading units, while the Radeon 610M has 128. The P400 also has 16 TMUs and 16 ROPs, versus 8 TMUs and 4 ROPs on the AMD part. The Radeon 610M compensates with higher clock speeds and 2 ray tracing cores.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ across nearly every measurable specification. The Radeon 610M uses a 6 nm process at TSMC, while the P400 uses a 14 nm process at Samsung. The AMD chip is Mendocino with RDNA 2.0 architecture; the NVIDIA chip is GP107 with Pascal. The Radeon 610M has a 100 mm² die, while the P400 has a 132 mm² die with 3,300 million transistors and a density of 25.0M per mm².

Clock speeds favor the AMD part. The Radeon 610M runs at 1500 MHz base and 1900 MHz boost, while the P400 runs at 1228 MHz base and 1252 MHz boost. Memory clocks also differ: the Radeon 610M uses system shared memory, while the P400 runs its GDDR5 at 1002 MHz with 4 Gbps effective speed.

The P400 has more shading units (256 versus 128), more TMUs (16 versus 8), and more ROPs (16 versus 4). The Radeon 610M has 2 ray tracing cores, which the P400 lacks entirely. Pixel and texture rates reflect these differences: the P400 achieves 20.03 GPixel/s and 20.03 GTexel/s, while the Radeon 610M achieves 7.600 GPixel/s and 15.20 GTexel/s. Floating-point performance also favors the P400 in FP32 at 641.0 GFLOPS versus 486.4 GFLOPS, but the Radeon 610M dominates FP16 at 972.8 GFLOPS (2:1) versus 10.02 GFLOPS (1:64).

Power and physical specs differ substantially. The Radeon 610M is rated at 15 W TDP, is an IGP with no power connectors, and has no listed slot width. The P400 is rated at 30 W TDP, is a single-slot card with no power connectors, and lists a suggested PSU of 200 W. The P400 uses PCIe 3.0 x16, while the Radeon 610M uses PCIe 4.0 x8. Display outputs are 3x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a on the P400, while the Radeon 610M's outputs are portable device dependent.

API support also differs. The Radeon 610M supports DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P400 supports DirectX 12 (12_1), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4. The P400 has physical dimensions of 150 mm length and 69 mm height; the Radeon 610M has none listed.

Release dates are far apart. The Radeon 610M launched on 2022-09-19, while the P400 launched on 2017-02-06. Both are end-of-life. The Radeon 610M's predecessor is Vega II IGP and its successor is Navi III IGP. The P400's predecessor is Quadro Maxwell and its successor is Quadro Volta.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two head-to-head comparisons, and the AMD Radeon 610M wins both. The first is Geekbench OpenCL, where the Radeon 610M scores 4535 and the Quadro P400 scores 4249. That is a 6.7% delta in favor of the AMD part. While the margin is not huge, it is consistent with the Radeon 610M's higher average score of 5444 compared to the P400's 4684.

The second test is Geekbench Vulkan, where the gap is much more pronounced. The Radeon 610M scores 6353, while the P400 scores 5119. That works out to a 24.1% advantage for the AMD part, a substantial margin that indicates the RDNA 2.0 architecture handles Vulkan workloads far more efficiently than Pascal does, at least as measured by this benchmark. Notably, the Radeon 610M's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score by roughly 40%, whereas the P400's Vulkan score is higher than its OpenCL score by only about 20%. The Radeon 610M is therefore not just faster in absolute terms; it also scales better on Vulkan relative to its own OpenCL result.

The P400's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Radeon RX 9060 XT 16 GB and AMD Radeon R5 M320, both with an average score of 4657, placing the P400 within 0.6% of those parts. The AMD Radeon R8 M445DX scores 4727, which is 0.9% above the P400, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 970M scores 4628, which is 1.2% below. This clustering around the 4650 to 4730 range shows the P400 sits in a tight performance band among its peers, slightly above some and slightly below others.

The Radeon 610M's nearest rivals include the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467, which is 0.4% below the AMD part, and the AMD Radeon R7 M440 at 5483, which is 0.7% above. The AMD Radeon R7 M365X scores 5416, 0.5% below, and the NVIDIA GeForce GTX 765M scores 5501, 1% above. These deltas are all within roughly one percentage point, indicating the Radeon 610M sits in a similarly tight competitive cluster, but at a higher absolute level than the P400's cluster.

In summary, the Radeon 610M wins both recorded benchmarks, with a modest 6.7% lead in OpenCL and a commanding 24.1% lead in Vulkan. The average score difference of 16% reinforces the idea that the AMD part is the stronger performer overall in the database's measurements, despite having fewer shading units and lower FP32 throughput. The P400's advantages in shading resources, memory bandwidth, and dedicated VRAM do not translate into recorded wins, at least not in these particular tests.