UHD Graphics 605 vs GeForce 310M

Place in the ranking	1325	1069
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.52	16.18
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GT218	Gemini Lake GT1.5
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	10 January 2010 (14 years ago)	11 December 2017 (7 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 cores	16	144
Core clock speed	606 MHz	200 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	750 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	189 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	5 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.848	13.50
Floating-point processing power	0.04896 TFLOPS	0.216 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	73	no data
ROPs	4	3
TMUs	8	18

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 support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	Ring Bus
Supplementary power connectors	None	no 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 type	DDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	10.67 GB/s	no data
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 Connectors	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI	Portable Device Dependent
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management	8.0	no data
Quick Sync	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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

UHD Graphics 605 1.18
+281%

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

UHD Graphics 605 453
+284%

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

UHD Graphics 605 2162
+92.5%

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	3−4 −300%	12 +300%
1440p	6−7 −300%	24 +300%
4K	3−4 −400%	15 +400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −75%	14−16 +75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −14.3%	30−35 +14.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −75%	14−16 +75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −22.2%	10−12 +22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −14.3%	30−35 +14.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −66.7%	5−6 +66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −75%	14−16 +75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −100%	8−9 +100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +800%	1 −800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −14.3%	30−35 +14.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	6−7 −16.7%	7−8 +16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −100%	4−5 +100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−100%

4−5
+100%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

This is how GeForce 310M and UHD Graphics 605 compete in popular games:

UHD Graphics 605 is 300% faster in 1080p
UHD Graphics 605 is 300% faster in 1440p
UHD Graphics 605 is 400% faster in 4K

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 310M is 800% faster.
in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the UHD Graphics 605 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce 310M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
UHD Graphics 605 is ahead in 26 tests (58%)
there's a draw in 18 tests (40%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.31	1.18
Recency	10 January 2010	11 December 2017
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	5 Watt

UHD Graphics 605 has a 280.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 180% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 605 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.

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