Radeon Graphics vs GeForce 310M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated894
Place by popularitynot in top-10010
Power efficiencyno data9.14
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT218Renoir
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)

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 cores16448
Core clock speed606 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1500 MHz
Number of transistors260 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate4.84842.00
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPS1.344 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs48
TMUs828

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).

Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16IGP
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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.

GeForce 310M 115
Radeon Graphics 764
+564%

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 15 Watt

GeForce 310M has 7.1% lower power consumption.

Graphics, on the other hand, has a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 310M and Radeon Graphics. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook card while Radeon Graphics is a desktop one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M
AMD Radeon Graphics
Radeon Graphics

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 445 votes

Rate GeForce 310M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6198 votes

Rate Radeon Graphics on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.