GeForce RTX 2060 vs NVS 310

Place in the ranking	1189	131
Place by popularity	not in top-100	19
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.04	39.49
Power efficiency	2.27	15.82
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF119	TU106
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)	7 January 2019 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$159	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 2060 has 98625% better value for money than NVS 310.

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	48	1920
Core clock speed	523 MHz	1365 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1680 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	160 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.184	201.6
Floating-point processing power	0.1004 TFLOPS	6.451 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	48
TMUs	8	120
Tensor Cores	no data	240
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	30

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	156 mm	229 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin

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	DDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	875 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14 GB/s	336.0 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	2x DisplayPort	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI	-	+
G-SYNC support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	7.5

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.

NVS 310 0.66

RTX 2060 36.77
+5471%

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.

NVS 310 255

RTX 2060 14137
+5444%

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.

NVS 310 880

RTX 2060 71638
+8041%

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	2−3 −5950%	121 +5950%
1440p	1−2 −7600%	77 +7600%
4K	0−1	50

Cost per frame, $

1080p	79.50 −2656%	2.88 +2656%
1440p	159.00 −3408%	4.53 +3408%
4K	no data	6.98

RTX 2060 has 2656% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RTX 2060 has 3408% lower cost per frame in 1440p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Elden Ring	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	90 +0%	90 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Metro Exodus	101 +0%	101 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	109 +0%	109 +0%
Valorant	185 +0%	185 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	147 +0%	147 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Dota 2	83 +0%	83 +0%
Elden Ring	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Fortnite	155 +0%	155 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	124 +0%	124 +0%
Metro Exodus	75 +0%	75 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	235 +0%	235 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	56 +0%	56 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Valorant	104 +0%	104 +0%
World of Tanks	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80 +0%	80 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Dota 2	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Far Cry 5	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	117 +0%	117 +0%
Valorant	162 +0%	162 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Elden Ring	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35 +0%	35 +0%
World of Tanks	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Far Cry 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Metro Exodus	76 +0%	76 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	102 +0%	102 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Dota 2	67 +0%	67 +0%
Elden Ring	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	67 +0%	67 +0%
Metro Exodus	26 +0%	26 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	115 +0%	115 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24 +0%	24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	67 +0%	67 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	41 +0%	41 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Dota 2	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Far Cry 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Fortnite	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	46 +0%	46 +0%

This is how NVS 310 and RTX 2060 compete in popular games:

RTX 2060 is 5950% faster in 1080p
RTX 2060 is 7600% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.66	36.77
Recency	26 June 2012	7 January 2019
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	160 Watt

NVS 310 has 700% lower power consumption.

RTX 2060, on the other hand, has a 5471.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 2060 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 2060 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.