GeForce 310M vs GTX 750

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking489not rated
Place by popularity95not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.37no data
Power efficiency10.97no 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)$119 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 cores51216
Core clock speed1020 MHz606 MHz
Boost clock speed1085 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt14 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature95 °Cno data
Texture fill rate34.724.848
Floating-point processing power1.111 TFLOPS0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs164
TMUs328

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 speed5.0 GB/sUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth80 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 support3 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
OpenGL4.43.3
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 3348
+2811%
GeForce 310M 115

Pros & cons summary


Recency 18 February 2014 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 14 Watt

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

GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has 292.9% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that GeForce GTX 750 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
GeForce GTX 750
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.


3.8 2286 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 750 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.