Radeon Vega 7 vs NVS 310

Place in the ranking	1189	533
Place by popularity	not in top-100	12
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.04	no data
Power efficiency	2.28	11.47
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF119	Cezanne
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)	13 April 2021 (3 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 cores	48	448
Core clock speed	523 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.184	53.20
Floating-point processing power	0.1004 TFLOPS	1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	8	28

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	IGP
Length	156 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	875 MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	14 GB/s	no data
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

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
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	2−3 −1050%	23 +1050%
1440p	2−3 −1150%	25 +1150%
4K	1−2 −1400%	15 +1400%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	79.50	no data
1440p	79.50	no data
4K	159.00	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Elden Ring	14 +0%	14 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	29 +0%	29 +0%
Metro Exodus	21 +0%	21 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +0%	27 +0%
Valorant	29 +0%	29 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Dota 2	17 +0%	17 +0%
Elden Ring	16 +0%	16 +0%
Far Cry 5	28 +0%	28 +0%
Fortnite	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	24 +0%	24 +0%
Metro Exodus	15 +0%	15 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	46 +0%	46 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Valorant	14 +0%	14 +0%
World of Tanks	58 +0%	58 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	21 +0%	21 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Valorant	25 +0%	25 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Elden Ring	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
World of Tanks	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Far Cry 5	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Metro Exodus	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Valorant	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Dota 2	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Elden Ring	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Fortnite	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Valorant	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

This is how NVS 310 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:

Vega 7 is 1050% faster in 1080p
Vega 7 is 1150% faster in 1440p
Vega 7 is 1400% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.66	7.48
Recency	26 June 2012	13 April 2021
Chip lithography	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	45 Watt

NVS 310 has 125% lower power consumption.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 1033.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation card while Radeon Vega 7 is a notebook one.

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