Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) vs NVS 310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared NVS 310 with Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema), including specs and performance data.
R3 (Mullins/Beema) outperforms NVS 310 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1235 | 1214 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 2.62 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | GCN 1.1 (2014) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | Beema/Mullins |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 29 April 2014 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 523 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 686 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 4.184 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1004 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | no data |
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 | no data |
| Length | 156 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 875 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 14 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | no data | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DisplayPort | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (FL 12_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| CUDA | 2.1 | - |
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 | 12−14
−25%
| 15
+25%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 13.25 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
This is how NVS 310 and R3 (Mullins/Beema) compete in popular games:
- R3 (Mullins/Beema) is 25% faster in 1080p
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 32 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.68 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 26 June 2012 | 29 April 2014 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
R3 (Mullins/Beema) has a 13% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.
Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R3 (Mullins/Beema) is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
