GeForce 310M vs GTX 750 Ti

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking442not rated
Place by popularity31not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.78no data
Power efficiency11.72no data
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGM107GT218
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date18 February 2014 (10 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

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 cores64016
Core clock speed1020 MHz606 MHz
Boost clock speed1085 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate43.404.848
Floating-point processing power1.389 TFLOPS0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs164
TMUs408

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 supportPCI Express 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GBUp to 1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed5.4 GB/sUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth86.4 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 ConnectorsOne Dual Link DVI-I, One Dual Link DVI-D, One mini-HDMIDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor support4 displays+
HDMI++
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x15362048x1536
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

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

Blu Ray 3D+-
3D Gaming+-
3D Vision+-
3D Vision Live+-
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
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA++

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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 750 Ti 3901
+3292%
GeForce 310M 115

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.

GTX 750 Ti 21608
+1824%
GeForce 310M 1123

Pros & cons summary


Recency 18 February 2014 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 14 Watt

GTX 750 Ti has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has 328.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 750 Ti and GeForce 310M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 750 Ti is a desktop card while GeForce 310M is a notebook one.


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 GTX 750 Ti
GeForce GTX 750 Ti
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.


3.9 6403 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 750 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 436 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.