NVS 310 vs FirePro W5170M

Place in the ranking	593	1184
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	no data	2.34
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Tropo	GF119
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	25 August 2014 (10 years ago)	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	640	48
Core clock speed	900 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	925 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,500 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	37.00	4.184
Floating-point processing power	1.184 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	40	8

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

Laptop size	large	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	156 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory type	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1125 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	72 GB/s	14 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors	No outputs	2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

AppAcceleration

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	-	2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

W5170M 5.68
+774%

NVS 310 0.65

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

W5170M 2191
+780%

NVS 310 249

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

W5170M 8841
+902%

NVS 310 882

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD

29
+867%

3−4

−867%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9−10
+800%

1−2

−800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Battlefield 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Hitman 3	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +880%	5−6 −880%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Battlefield 5	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry New Dawn	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Hitman 3	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Metro Exodus	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +880%	5−6 −880%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%
Hitman 3	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	35−40 +775%	4−5 −775%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +850%	2−3 −850%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +880%	5−6 −880%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

14−16
+1400%

1−2

−1400%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	6−7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Hitman 3	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +800%	4−5 −800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+900%

1−2

−900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

0−1

This is how W5170M and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

W5170M is 867% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.68	0.65
Recency	25 August 2014	26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm

W5170M has a 773.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro W5170M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W5170M is a mobile workstation card while NVS 310 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.