GeForce 310M vs GT 415M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 415M and GeForce 310M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 415M
2010
512 MB DDR3, 12 Watt
0.74
+139%

GT 415M outperforms 310M by a whopping 139% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11601325
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.231.52
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGF108GT218
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 September 2010 (14 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 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 cores4816
Core clock speed500 MHz606 MHz
Number of transistors585 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate4.0004.848
Floating-point processing power0.096 TFLOPS0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs44
TMUs88

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MBUp to 1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHzUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s10.67 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 ConnectorsNo outputsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.11.1
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.

GT 415M 0.74
+139%
GeForce 310M 0.31

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 415M 286
+142%
GeForce 310M 118

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 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10.7%
27−30
−10.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10.7%
27−30
−10.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10.7%
27−30
−10.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

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

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GT 415M is 67% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 415M is ahead in 26 tests (90%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (10%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.74 0.31
Recency 3 September 2010 10 January 2010
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 14 Watt

GT 415M has a 138.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, and 16.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 415M 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.

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 GT 415M
GeForce GT 415M
NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M

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.


2.8 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 415M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 454 votes

Rate GeForce 310M 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.