Winner
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti
GPUBoss recommends the Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti based on its benchmarks and compute performance.
See full details GeForce GTX 550 Ti vs GT 610 |
Released March, 2011
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti
- 900 MHz
- 1 GB GDDR5
6.2 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
6 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 among Desktop GPUs
Gaming | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 21 more | |
Graphics | |
| | |
| T-Rex, Manhattan, Cloud Gate Factor, Sky Diver Factor and 1 more | |
Computing | |
| | |
| Face Detection, Ocean Surface Simulation and 3 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Value | |
| | |
| Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Bioshock Infinite and 32 more | |
Noise and Power | |
| | |
| TDP, Idle Power Consumption, Load Power Consumption and 2 more | |
| 6.2 | Overall Score |
| | |
 | 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much higher effective memory clock speed | 4,104 MHz | vs | 1,200 MHz | Around 3.5x higher effective memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher memory bandwidth | 98.5 GB/s | vs | 9.6 GB/s | More than 10.2x higher memory bandwidth | |||
| Better PassMark score | 1,926 | vs | 354 | Around 5.5x better PassMark score | |||
| Much better manhattan score | 3,427.45 | vs | 1,131.05 | More than 3x better manhattan score | |||
| Better 3DMark vantage graphics score | 9,923 | vs | 1,820 | Around 5.5x better 3DMark vantage graphics score | |||
| Higher clock speed | 900 MHz | vs | 810 MHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly better sky diver factor score | 136.02 | vs | 33.52 | More than 4x better sky diver factor score | |||
| Significantly more render output processors | 24 | vs | 4 | 20 more render output processors | |||
| Better floating-point performance | 691.2 GFLOPS | vs | 155.52 GFLOPS | Around 4.5x better floating-point performance | |||
| Significantly higher battlefield 3 framerate | 47 | vs | 27 | Around 75% higher battlefield 3 framerate | |||
| Higher texture rate | 28.8 GTexel/s | vs | 6.48 GTexel/s | Around 4.5x higher texture rate | |||
| Significantly higher memory clock speed | 1,026 MHz | vs | 600 MHz | More than 70% higher memory clock speed | |||
| Significantly 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 | 822 | vs | 218 | More than 3.8x better PassMark direct compute score | |||
| Slightly better bitcoin mining score | 44.07 mHash/s | vs | 4.05 mHash/s | More than 10.8x better bitcoin mining score | |||
| |||||||
| More memory | 2,048 MB | vs | 1,024 MB | 2x more memory | |||
| Better 3DMark06 score | 3,910 | vs | 2,272 | More than 70% better 3DMark06 score | |||
| Significantly lower TDP | 29W | vs | 116W | 4x lower TDP | |||
Report a correction
