NVS 310 vs GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER

Place in the ranking	206	1188
Place by popularity	56	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.03
Power efficiency	18.37	2.27
Architecture	Turing (2018−2022)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	TU116	GF119
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	22 November 2019 (5 years ago)	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$159

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 cores	1280	48
Core clock speed	1530 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	1725 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	6,600 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	138.0	4.184
Floating-point processing power	4.416 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	32	4
TMUs	80	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 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	229 mm	156 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR6	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	12000 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192.0 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, 1x DisplayPort	2x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready	+	no data
Multi Monitor	+	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	6.5	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	7.5	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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 26.34
+3952%

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 10162
+3949%

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.

GTX 1650 SUPER 55772
+6231%

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	71 +7000%	1−2 −7000%
1440p	37	0−1
4K	22	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

159.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

63
+6200%

1−2

−6200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +5600%	1−2 −5600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	53 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Battlefield 5	85−90 +4200%	2−3 −4200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Cyberpunk 2077	50 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +4933%	3−4 −4933%
Hitman 3	62 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%
Metro Exodus	69 +6800%	1−2 −6800%
Red Dead Redemption 2	84 +4100%	2−3 −4100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	90−95 +4400%	2−3 −4400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	180 +4400%	4−5 −4400%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +5600%	1−2 −5600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	26	0−1
Battlefield 5	85−90 +4200%	2−3 −4200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Cyberpunk 2077	40	0−1
Far Cry 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +4933%	3−4 −4933%
Hitman 3	59 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%
Metro Exodus	82 +4000%	2−3 −4000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	101 +4950%	2−3 −4950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +5500%	1−2 −5500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	180 +4400%	4−5 −4400%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60 +5600%	1−2 −5600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	15	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55 +5300%	1−2 −5300%
Cyberpunk 2077	34	0−1
Far Cry 5	60−65 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +4933%	3−4 −4933%
Hitman 3	53 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	83 +4050%	2−3 −4050%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	83 +4050%	2−3 −4050%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Watch Dogs: Legion	21	0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

66
+6500%

1−2

−6500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +4900%	1−2 −4900%
Far Cry New Dawn	40−45	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	27−30	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	20	0−1
Far Cry 5	30−33	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	150−160 +4933%	3−4 −4933%
Hitman 3	34	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	60 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
Metro Exodus	55 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	60 +5900%	1−2 −5900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	164 +4000%	4−5 −4000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

44
+4300%

1−2

−4300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	21−24	0−1
Hitman 3	34	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	130−140 +4367%	3−4 −4367%
Metro Exodus	32	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	32	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16−18	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3	0−1
Far Cry 5	14−16	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	35−40	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	8	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

This is how GTX 1650 SUPER and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

GTX 1650 SUPER is 7000% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	26.34	0.65
Recency	22 November 2019	26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	12 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	20 Watt

GTX 1650 SUPER has a 3952.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1650 SUPER 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.