NVS 310 vs Iris Graphics 540

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Iris Graphics 540 with NVS 310, including specs and performance data.

Iris Graphics 540
2015
15 Watt
3.27
+403%

Iris Graphics 540 outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 403% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7411186
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency15.072.25
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameSkylake GT3eGF119
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 September 2015 (9 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 cores38448
Core clock speed300 MHz523 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate48.004.184
Floating-point processing power0.768 TFLOPS0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs64
TMUs488

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data156 mm
WidthIGP1-slot
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 typeSystem SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared875 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data14 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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent2x DisplayPort

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-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.

Iris Graphics 540 3.27
+403%
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.

Iris Graphics 540 1261
+402%
NVS 310 251

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 HD20
+567%
3−4
−567%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data53.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+467%
3−4
−467%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+433%
3−4
−433%
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+475%
4−5
−475%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+550%
2−3
−550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+600%
2−3
−600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+457%
7−8
−457%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 18−20
+500%
3−4
−500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

This is how Iris Graphics 540 and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

  • Iris Graphics 540 is 567% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.27 0.65
Recency 1 September 2015 26 June 2012
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 20 Watt

Iris Graphics 540 has a 403.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 33.3% lower power consumption.

The Iris Graphics 540 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that Iris Graphics 540 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.

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.


Intel Iris Graphics 540
Iris Graphics 540
NVIDIA NVS 310
NVS 310

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.


3.5 92 votes

Rate Iris Graphics 540 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 81 vote

Rate NVS 310 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.