Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti based on its .
See full details GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs GT 610 |
Released March, 2011
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti
- 900 MHz
- 1 GB GDDR5
6 Out of 10
by techPowerUp! (Mar, 2011)It makes for a good bargain, but even with overclocked speeds, things don't change much for the GTX 550 Ti in its competitive.
VS
Released May, 2012
ASUS GeForce GT 610
- 810 MHz
- 2 GB DDR3
5.4 Out of 10
by Ryan-Smith (May, 2012)With 96 CUDA cores we’re not 100% sure that this is GF108 as opposed to the 28nm GK117, but as NVIDIA currently has a 28nm capacity bottleneck we can’t see them placing valuable 28nm chips in low-end retail cards.
GPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 550 Ti vs 610
Gaming | |
Real world tests using the latest 3D games | |
| crysis: warhead (2013), Crysis: Warhead (2012), Batman: Arkham City and 6 more | |
Benchmarks | |
Synthetic tests to measure overall performance | |
| Passmark, 3DMark 11 Graphics, 3DMark Vantage Graphics and 3DMark06 | |
Compute Performance | |
General computing tests executed on the GPU | |
| Passmark Direct Compute and CLBenchmark Raytrace | |
Noise and Power | |
How loud and hot does the card run idle and under load | |
| TDP | |
GPUBoss Score | |
Gaming, Benchmarks, Compute Performance and Noise and Power | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with GPUBoss?
VS
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 TiGPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better 3DMark 11 graphics score | 15,553 | vs | 560 | More than 27.8x better 3DMark 11 graphics score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly higher effective memory clock speed | 4,104 MHz | vs | 1,200 MHz | Around 3.5x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Better passmark score | 1,929 | vs | 352 | Around 5.5x better passmark score | |||
| Higher clock speed | 900 MHz | vs | 810 MHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 9,923 | vs | 1,820 | Around 5.5x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Higher memory bandwidth | 98.5 GB/s | vs | 9.6 GB/s | More than 10.2x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| More render output processors | 24 | vs | 4 | 20 more render output processors | |||
| Slightly better floating-point performance | 691.2 GFLOPS | vs | 155.5 GFLOPS | Around 4.5x better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,026 MHz | vs | 600 MHz | More than 70% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Higher texture rate | 28.8 GTexel/s | vs | 6.48 GTexel/s | Around 4.5x higher texture rate | |||
| Slightly higher pixel rate | 7.2 GPixel/s | vs | 1.62 GPixel/s | Around 4.5x higher pixel rate | |||
| Wider memory bus | 192 bit | vs | 64 bit | 3x wider memory bus | |||
| More texture mapping units | 32 | vs | 8 | 24 more texture mapping units | |||
| Better passmark direct compute score | 803 | vs | 204 | Around 4x better passmark direct compute score | |||
| Better CLBenchmark raytrace score | 48,088 | vs | 8,914 | Around 5.5x better CLBenchmark raytrace score | |||
| |||||||
| More memory | 2,048 MB | vs | 1,024 MB | 2x more memory | |||
| Lower TDP | 29W | vs | 116W | 4x lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
