GMA 3100 vs NVS 310

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1188not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Power efficiency2.27no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGF119Bearlake
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date26 June 2012 (12 years ago)9 May 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 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 cores48no data
Core clock speed523 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors292 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate4.1841.600
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPSno data
ROPs44
TMUs84

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length156 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount512 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed875 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)9.0c
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.1-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 26 June 2012 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 40 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 13 Watt

NVS 310 has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3100, on the other hand, has 53.8% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between NVS 310 and GMA 3100. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation card while GMA 3100 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 NVS 310
NVS 310
Intel GMA 3100
GMA 3100

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.


3.3 81 vote

Rate NVS 310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 281 vote

Rate GMA 3100 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.