GeForce MX550 vs NVS 3100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 3100M with GeForce MX550, including specs and performance data.

NVS 3100M
2010
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.53

MX550 outperforms NVS 3100M by a whopping 2123% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1224405
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.6432.86
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT218TU117S
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)17 December 2021 (2 years ago)

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 cores161024
Core clock speed606 MHz1065 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1320 MHz
Number of transistors260 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt25 Watt
Texture fill rate4.84842.24
Floating-point processing power0.04698 TFLOPS2.703 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs832

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 4.0 x8
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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s96 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

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

Optimus-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.7 (6.4)
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.27.5

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 3100M 0.53
GeForce MX550 11.78
+2123%

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 3100M 204
GeForce MX550 4546
+2128%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

NVS 3100M 1121
GeForce MX550 36560
+3163%

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 HD2−3
−2200%
46
+2200%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−600%
27−30
+600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%
Hitman 3 5−6
−340%
21−24
+340%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−530%
60−65
+530%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−533%
35−40
+533%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−130%
65−70
+130%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−600%
27−30
+600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3200%
30−35
+3200%
Hitman 3 5−6
−340%
21−24
+340%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−530%
60−65
+530%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−767%
52
+767%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−200%
30−33
+200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−130%
65−70
+130%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−600%
27−30
+600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−500%
18−20
+500%
Hitman 3 5−6
−340%
21−24
+340%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−530%
60−65
+530%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−600%
42
+600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−170%
27
+170%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−130%
65−70
+130%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1700%
18−20
+1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 12−14
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−500%
6−7
+500%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Hitman 3 6−7
−150%
14−16
+150%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−700%
24−27
+700%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−533%
18−20
+533%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 5−6

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−450%
10−12
+450%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how NVS 3100M and GeForce MX550 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce MX550 is 2200% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX550 is 7300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX550 is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 11.78
Recency 7 January 2010 17 December 2021
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 25 Watt

NVS 3100M has 78.6% lower power consumption.

GeForce MX550, on the other hand, has a 2122.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce MX550 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX550 is a mobile 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.


NVIDIA NVS 3100M
NVS 3100M
NVIDIA GeForce MX550
GeForce MX550

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.


3.1 128 votes

Rate NVS 3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 786 votes

Rate GeForce MX550 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.