Radeon RX 6500 XT vs GeForce 310M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 310M with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.

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

RX 6500 XT outperforms 310M by a whopping 7910% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1325220
Place by popularitynot in top-10083
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data58.69
Power efficiency1.5215.91
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT218Navi 24
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)19 January 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

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 cores161024
Core clock speed606 MHz2610 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2815 MHz
Number of transistors260 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt107 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848180.2
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPS5.765 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs432
TMUs864
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 x4
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-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 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz2248 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s143.9 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 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
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 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
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 6500 XT 24.83
+7910%

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 6500 XT 9569
+8009%

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 6500 XT 76445
+6707%

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 HD0−162
1440p-0−128
4K-0−116

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.21
1440pno data7.11
4Kno data12.44

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3500%
72
+3500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1700%
50−55
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2600%
54
+2600%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1325%
110−120
+1325%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2000%
80−85
+2000%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−268%
100−110
+268%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1700%
50−55
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1600%
34
+1600%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1325%
110−120
+1325%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2575%
107
+2575%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−489%
50−55
+489%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−268%
100−110
+268%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1700%
50−55
+1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2400%
50−55
+2400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1400%
30
+1400%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1150%
50−55
+1150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1050%
92
+1050%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1975%
83
+1975%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−500%
54
+500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+12%
25
−12%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 17
Hitman 3 6−7
−383%
27−30
+383%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−3200%
66
+3200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1950%
40−45
+1950%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1400%
14−16
+1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 6

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 51
+0%
51
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 43
+0%
43
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
+0%
31
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 23
+0%
23
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 56
+0%
56
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 10
+0%
10
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 25
+0%
25
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10
+0%
10
+0%

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 310M is 12% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6500 XT is 3500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 310M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • RX 6500 XT is ahead in 28 tests (40%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 24.83
Recency 10 January 2010 19 January 2022
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 107 Watt

GeForce 310M has 664.3% lower power consumption.

RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 7909.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6500 XT 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 6500 XT 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 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT

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
3.8 3307 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6500 XT 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.