Radeon RX 5700 vs GeForce 310M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 310M with Radeon RX 5700, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 310M
2010
Up to 1 GB DDR3, 14 Watt
0.31

RX 5700 outperforms 310M by a whopping 11958% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1325125
Place by popularitynot in top-10072
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data44.79
Power efficiency1.5214.24
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGT218Navi 10
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)7 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$349

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 cores162304
Core clock speed606 MHz1465 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1725 MHz
Number of transistors260 million10,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt180 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848248.4
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPS7.949 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs464
TMUs8144

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data268 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 DVI1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
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 Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+-

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.

GeForce 310M 0.31
RX 5700 37.38
+11958%

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 118
RX 5700 14403
+12106%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce 310M 1123
RX 5700 91993
+8092%

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 HD0−1114
1440p0−169
4K-0−141

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.06
1440pno data5.06
4Kno data8.51

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−4100%
84
+4100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2467%
77
+2467%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−5000%
102
+5000%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3650%
75
+3650%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1800%
76
+1800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−3575%
294
+3575%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−3300%
130−140
+3300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−825%
259
+825%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−4233%
130
+4233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−4500%
92
+4500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3250%
67
+3250%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1775%
75
+1775%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−3538%
291
+3538%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−4275%
175
+4275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−767%
75−80
+767%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−768%
243
+768%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1900%
60
+1900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3300%
68
+3300%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2800%
58
+2800%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1725%
73
+1725%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1388%
119
+1388%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−3775%
155
+3775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−911%
91
+911%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−107%
58
+107%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 36
Hitman 3 6−7
−817%
55
+817%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−4550%
93
+4550%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−3400%
70
+3400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−3000%
31
+3000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 31

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1650%
35
+1650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 97
+0%
97
+0%
Battlefield 5 180
+0%
180
+0%
Far Cry 5 112
+0%
112
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 99
+0%
99
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 288
+0%
288
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 113
+0%
113
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 80
+0%
80
+0%
Battlefield 5 145
+0%
145
+0%
Far Cry 5 90
+0%
90
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 276
+0%
276
+0%
Metro Exodus 143
+0%
143
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 98
+0%
98
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 77
+0%
77
+0%
Far Cry 5 64
+0%
64
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 118
+0%
118
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 102
+0%
102
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 73
+0%
73
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 51
+0%
51
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 53
+0%
53
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50
+0%
50
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 267
+0%
267
+0%
Metro Exodus 94
+0%
94
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 108
+0%
108
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 244
+0%
244
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 39
+0%
39
+0%
Hitman 3 39
+0%
39
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 116
+0%
116
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 48
+0%
48
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 15
+0%
15
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70
+0%
70
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 64
+0%
64
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 11
+0%
11
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 5700 is 5000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 5700 is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 37.38
Recency 10 January 2010 7 July 2019
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 180 Watt

GeForce 310M has 1185.7% lower power consumption.

RX 5700, on the other hand, has a 11958.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 5700 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 RX 5700
Radeon RX 5700

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.


2.9 454 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 1795 votes

Rate Radeon RX 5700 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.