Radeon RX 7600M XT vs NVS 3100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 3100M with Radeon RX 7600M XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 3100M
2010
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.53

RX 7600M XT outperforms NVS 3100M by a whopping 6355% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1224151
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.6419.87
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGT218Navi 33
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)4 January 2023 (1 year 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 cores162048
Core clock speed606 MHz1280 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2469 MHz
Number of transistors260 million13,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt120 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848316.0
Floating-point processing power0.04698 TFLOPS20.23 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8128
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
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 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s288.0 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.2-

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
RX 7600M XT 34.21
+6355%

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
RX 7600M XT 13196
+6369%

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
RX 7600M XT 94691
+8351%

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 HD1−2
−11900%
120
+11900%
1440p0−159
4K0−135

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1600%
50−55
+1600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−3175%
131
+3175%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1967%
60−65
+1967%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1600%
50−55
+1600%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−7600%
75−80
+7600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1160%
60−65
+1160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1240%
130−140
+1240%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1650%
100−110
+1650%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−280%
110−120
+280%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−5825%
237
+5825%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1967%
60−65
+1967%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1600%
50−55
+1600%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−7600%
75−80
+7600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1160%
60−65
+1160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1240%
130−140
+1240%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−3367%
208
+3367%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−540%
60−65
+540%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−280%
110−120
+280%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−2025%
85
+2025%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1967%
60−65
+1967%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1600%
50−55
+1600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−1160%
60−65
+1160%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1300%
140
+1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−2900%
180
+2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−900%
100
+900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−100%
60
+100%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−4500%
45−50
+4500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 62
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−3400%
35−40
+3400%
Hitman 3 6−7
−517%
35−40
+517%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−3433%
106
+3433%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−16100%
160−170
+16100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1600%
50−55
+1600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−3100%
32
+3100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 30

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1200%
24−27
+1200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 139
+0%
139
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 114
+0%
114
+0%
Battlefield 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Metro Exodus 142
+0%
142
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180
+0%
180
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 67
+0%
67
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Metro Exodus 92
+0%
92
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 120
+0%
120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 74
+0%
74
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Metro Exodus 99
+0%
99
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
+0%
52
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Far Cry 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 64
+0%
64
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 22
+0%
22
+0%

This is how NVS 3100M and RX 7600M XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 7600M XT is 11900% 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 RX 7600M XT is 16100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 7600M XT is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 34.21
Recency 7 January 2010 4 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 120 Watt

NVS 3100M has 757.1% lower power consumption.

RX 7600M XT, on the other hand, has a 6354.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7600M XT is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation card while Radeon RX 7600M XT 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
AMD Radeon RX 7600M XT
Radeon RX 7600M XT

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
4 70 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7600M XT 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.