UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) vs GeForce 310M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 310M and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) outperforms 310M by a whopping 632% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1327 | 857 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.52 | 15.63 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Gen. 11 (2021) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | Gen. 11 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 11 January 2021 (4 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 | 24 |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 800 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 4.8 - 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.04896 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 73 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | no data |
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 | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 1 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | no data |
| 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 | no data |
| 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_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 1−2
−1100%
| 12
+1100%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−100%
|
12
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−125%
|
9−10
+125%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−80%
|
9−10
+80%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
−231%
|
40−45
+231%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
−133%
|
14−16
+133%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−267%
|
21−24
+267%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−650%
|
14−16
+650%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−50%
|
6−7
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−6.7%
|
16−18
+6.7%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Elden Ring | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 310M and UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is 1100% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is 650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) is ahead in 28 tests (55%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (45%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.31 | 2.27 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 11 January 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 4 Watt |
UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) has a 632.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.
The UHD Graphics (Jasper Lake 24 EU) 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
