AMD Radeon 610M vs NVIDIA RTX A400 Comparison

NVIDIA RTX A400 is a discrete workstation GPU built on the Ampere architecture, while AMD Radeon 610M is an integrated graphics processor (IGP) based on RDNA 2.0. The database shows a clear performance hierarchy between these two, with the RTX A400 dominating in every recorded benchmark. The RTX A400 holds an average benchmark score of 6078, placing it in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 610M averages 5444, landing in the 32nd percentile. This places the RTX A400 about 11.6% ahead in average score, a gap that becomes much wider in compute-heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records two direct head-to-head comparisons between these GPUs, and the NVIDIA RTX A400 wins both by massive margins. In the Geekbench OpenCL test, the RTX A400 scores 22844 against the Radeon 610M’s 4535. That is a 403.7% advantage, meaning the NVIDIA card delivers roughly five times the raw compute performance in this OpenCL workload. This result reflects the fundamental difference between a dedicated 50 W GPU and a 15 W integrated solution.

The Geekbench Vulkan test tells a similar story, though the gap narrows slightly. The RTX A400 scores 22237, while the Radeon 610M manages 6353. The NVIDIA card leads by 250% in this API, still a commanding victory. Vulkan tends to scale well with shading units and memory bandwidth, and the RTX A400’s dedicated GDDR6 memory and 768 shading units overwhelm the IGP’s 128 shading units and shared system memory.

Looking at the broader benchmark data, the RTX A400 also has recorded scores in Passmark tests that the Radeon 610M lacks entirely. The RTX A400 scores 5983 in Passmark G3D, 2557 in GPU Compute, 899 in G2D, and 87 in DirectX 9. These are not directly comparable since the Radeon 610M has no entries for those tests, but they show the RTX A400 is a fully featured discrete card capable of legacy and modern API workloads. The Radeon 610M’s absence from these tests suggests it is not typically evaluated for desktop-style 3D rendering tasks.

The wins tally is 2 for the RTX A400 and 0 for the Radeon 610M. No benchmark in the database shows the AMD part ahead. The closest rival comparison for the RTX A400 is the NVIDIA GeForce MX230, which scores 6077, a 0% delta. The Radeon 610M’s nearest rival is the NVIDIA Quadro M4000 at 5467, which is 0.4% higher. This puts both GPUs in similar company relative to their peers, but the absolute performance gap between the two is substantial.

FAQ

Q: Which GPU is faster in Geekbench OpenCL?

A: The NVIDIA RTX A400 scores 22844 versus the AMD Radeon 610M’s 4535, a 403.7% advantage. The RTX A400 is approximately five times faster in this compute workload.

Q: Does the AMD Radeon 610M win any benchmark against the RTX A400?

A: No. The database records 2 head-to-head benchmarks, both won by the RTX A400. The wins tally is 2 for NVIDIA and 0 for AMD.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The RTX A400 has an average benchmark score of 6078, while the Radeon 610M averages 5444. This gives the NVIDIA card an 11.6% higher average score overall.

Q: What is the performance difference in Vulkan?

A: The RTX A400 scores 22237 in Geekbench Vulkan, compared to 6353 for the Radeon 610M. The NVIDIA GPU leads by 250% in this test.

Q: Are these GPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: No. The RTX A400 sits in the 35th percentile of all GPUs, while the Radeon 610M is in the 32nd percentile. Both are below average, but the RTX A400 is closer to the middle of the pack.

Q: Which GPU has more shading units?

A: The RTX A400 has 768 shading units, while the Radeon 610M has 128. This sixfold difference in shading units explains much of the compute performance gap.

Where Each One Wins

The NVIDIA RTX A400 wins in every scenario the database measures. In OpenCL compute, it absolutely crushes the Radeon 610M, making it the clear choice for any workload that offloads parallel math to the GPU. The 403.7% lead in Geekbench OpenCL indicates the RTX A400 can handle tasks like rendering, physics simulation, or data processing that would bring the integrated AMD part to its knees. Its 96.00 GB/s dedicated memory bandwidth, versus the Radeon 610M’s system-dependent shared memory, gives it a massive advantage in memory-bound tasks.

The RTX A400 also wins decisively in Vulkan, which is relevant for modern games and compute APIs. A 250% lead in this test means the NVIDIA card can drive higher frame rates or more complex scenes in Vulkan-based applications. For anyone building a small form factor workstation or a compact rendering box, the RTX A400’s 163 mm length and single-slot design make it easy to fit, while its 4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a outputs support multi-monitor setups.

The AMD Radeon 610M has no benchmark wins in the database. Its only advantage lies in its integration: it is an IGP with no separate card, no power connectors, and a 15 W TDP. For a portable device where space and battery life are critical, the Radeon 610M is the only option that fits, since the RTX A400 requires a PCIe slot and a dedicated cooler. But purely on performance, the RTX A400 is the winner in every recorded metric.

Specification Differences

The two GPUs differ in almost every specification that affects performance. The RTX A400 uses 4 GB of GDDR6 memory on a 64-bit bus, delivering 96.00 GB/s of bandwidth. The Radeon 610M uses system shared memory, with bandwidth that is system dependent. This means the AMD part’s memory performance varies with the host system’s RAM speed and architecture, while the NVIDIA card has a fixed, dedicated pool.

Clock speeds also favor the AMD part on paper, but not in practice. The Radeon 610M has a base clock of 1500 MHz and a boost of 1900 MHz, while the RTX A400 runs at 1417 MHz base and 1762 MHz boost. Despite lower clocks, the RTX A400 wins because it has 768 shading units versus 128, 24 TMUs versus 8, and 16 ROPs versus 4. The RTX A400 also has 6 ray tracing cores and 24 tensor cores, while the Radeon 610M has 2 ray tracing cores and no tensor cores.

The TDP difference is stark: 50 W for the RTX A400 versus 15 W for the Radeon 610M. The RTX A400 is a single-slot card requiring no power connectors and a 250 W suggested PSU, while the Radeon 610M is an IGP with no slot width, no PSU requirement, and no dimensions. Process nodes differ too: the RTX A400 uses Samsung’s 8 nm process with 8,700 million transistors on a 200 mm² die, while the Radeon 610M uses TSMC’s 6 nm process on a 100 mm² die with transistor count not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The NVIDIA RTX A400 is built on the Ampere architecture, specifically the GA107 chip, belonging to the Workstation Ampere (Ax000) generation. It has 768 shading units, 24 TMUs, 16 ROPs, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput is 2.706 TFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is identical at 2.706 TFLOPS with a 1:1 ratio. This means it handles both precision levels at the same speed, which is useful for workloads that mix FP16 and FP32 operations.

The AMD Radeon 610M uses the RDNA 2.0 architecture with the Mendocino chip, part of the Navi II IGP generation. It has 128 shading units, 8 TMUs, 4 ROPs, and 2 ray tracing cores, but no tensor cores. Its FP32 throughput is 486.4 GFLOPS, and its FP16 throughput is 972.8 GFLOPS with a 2:1 ratio, meaning FP16 is twice as fast as FP32. This is a common design for integrated GPUs, favoring lower precision for efficiency.

The RTX A400 packs 8,700 million transistors into a 200 mm² die, giving a transistor density of 43.5 million per mm². The Radeon 610M’s transistor count is not recorded, but its die is 100 mm². The NVIDIA card’s dedicated ray tracing and tensor cores give it hardware acceleration for ray-traced rendering and AI inference, features the AMD IGP lacks entirely. Both support DirectX 12 Ultimate (12_2), OpenGL 4.6, and Vulkan 1.4, so they are equally modern in API support.

The RTX A400’s 2.706 TFLOPS FP32 is over five times the Radeon 610M’s 486.4 GFLOPS. Pixel rate is 28.19 GPixel/s versus 7.600 GPixel/s, and texture rate is 42.29 GTexel/s versus 15.20 GTexel/s. These raw throughput numbers explain why the RTX A400 wins by such large margins in the recorded benchmarks.

The Verdict

The NVIDIA RTX A400 is the clear pick for anyone who needs a discrete GPU with dedicated memory and high compute throughput. The data shows it is 403.7% faster in OpenCL and 250% faster in Vulkan than the Radeon 610M. Its 4 GB of GDDR6 memory, 6 ray tracing cores, and 24 tensor cores make it suitable for professional workstation tasks, including ray-traced rendering and AI-accelerated workflows. The 50 W TDP is modest for a discrete card, and its single-slot, 163 mm length design fits in compact systems.

The AMD Radeon 610M is not a performer; it is an efficiency play. As a 15 W IGP, it exists to provide basic graphics capability in portable devices without a separate GPU. Its 32nd percentile ranking and 5444 average score place it below the RTX A400’s 35th percentile and 6078 average. There is no benchmark in the database where the Radeon 610M wins, so its only justification is the absence of a PCIe slot or the need for minimal power draw.

For a desktop workstation or a small form factor PC where a slot is available, the RTX A400 is the only sensible choice between these two. Its performance lead is so large that the Radeon 610M cannot be recommended for any task beyond basic 2D output or light 3D acceleration. For a laptop or ultraportable where the GPU is soldered to the motherboard, the Radeon 610M is what you get, and the data confirms you accept a major performance penalty relative to even a low-end discrete card. The verdict is straightforward: the RTX A400 wins every measurable metric, and the Radeon 610M’s only real advantage is that it requires no additional hardware.