ATI Radeon X1600 PRO vs GeForce 310M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 310M with Radeon X1600 PRO, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 310M
2010
Up to 1 GB DDR3, 14 Watt
0.31
+24%

310M outperforms ATI X1600 PRO by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13241356
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.520.42
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)R500 (2005−2007)
GPU code nameGT218RV530
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)1 October 2007 (17 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 cores16no data
Core clock speed606 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors260 million157 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt41 Watt
Texture fill rate4.8482.000
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPSno data
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs44
TMUs84

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 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz390 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s12.48 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 DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
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)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.13.0
OpenGL3.32.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
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
+24%
ATI X1600 PRO 0.25

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
+20.4%
ATI X1600 PRO 98

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+33.3%
21−24
−33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 0.25
Recency 10 January 2010 1 October 2007
Chip lithography 40 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 41 Watt

GeForce 310M has a 24% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 125% more advanced lithography process, and 192.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 310M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon X1600 PRO in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook card while Radeon X1600 PRO 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
ATI Radeon X1600 PRO
Radeon X1600 PRO

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.


2.9 455 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 124 votes

Rate Radeon X1600 PRO 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.