NVS 310 vs GeForce GT 1030

Place in the ranking	573	1186
Place by popularity	36	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	2.31	0.01
Power efficiency	14.70	2.25
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GP108	GF119
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	17 May 2017 (7 years ago)	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$79	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GT 1030 has 23000% better value for money than NVS 310.

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	384	48
Core clock speed	1228 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	1468 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,800 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	35.23	4.184
Floating-point processing power	1.127 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	24	8

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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x4	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	145 mm	156 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1502 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	48.06 GB/s	14 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI	2x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	2.1

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.

GT 1030 6.37
+880%

NVS 310 0.65

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.

GT 1030 2456
+878%

NVS 310 251

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 1030 9735
+1005%

NVS 310 881

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	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
1440p	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
4K	9	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.29	79.50
1440p	4.16	159.00
4K	8.78	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

15
+1400%

1−2

−1400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9	0−1
Battlefield 5	22 +1000%	2−3 −1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry 5	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
Far Cry New Dawn	27 +1250%	2−3 −1250%
Forza Horizon 4	93 +933%	9−10 −933%
Hitman 3	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	152 +986%	14−16 −986%
Metro Exodus	26 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	31 +933%	3−4 −933%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	37 +1133%	3−4 −1133%
Watch Dogs: Legion	93 +933%	9−10 −933%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9	0−1
Battlefield 5	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Cyberpunk 2077	7	0−1
Far Cry 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	20 +900%	2−3 −900%
Forza Horizon 4	84 +950%	8−9 −950%
Hitman 3	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	123 +925%	12−14 −925%
Metro Exodus	20 +900%	2−3 −900%
Red Dead Redemption 2	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	84 +950%	8−9 −950%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8−9	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Forza Horizon 4	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Hitman 3	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6	0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

19
+1800%

1−2

−1800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Far Cry New Dawn	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	7−8	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	20−22 +900%	2−3 −900%
Hitman 3	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	48 +1100%	4−5 −1100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12
+1000%

1−2

−1000%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4	0−1
Hitman 3	3−4	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	7	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8

0−1

This is how GT 1030 and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

GT 1030 is 1100% faster in 1080p
GT 1030 is 1800% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	6.37	0.65
Recency	17 May 2017	26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	30 Watt	20 Watt

GT 1030 has a 880% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 1030 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 1030 is a desktop card while NVS 310 is a workstation one.

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