NVS 310 vs Quadro FX 4600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 4600 and NVS 310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 4600
2007
768 MB GDDR3, 134 Watt
1.11
+73.4%

FX 4600 outperforms NVS 310 by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking10851196
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameG80GF119
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date5 March 2007 (17 years ago)26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 $159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 4600 and NVS 310 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores9648
Core clock speed500 MHz523 MHz
Number of transistors681 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)134 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate24.004.184
Floating-point performance0.2304 gflops0.1004 gflops

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 1.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length229 mm156 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount768 MB512 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth67.2 GB/s14 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

FX 4600 1.11
+73.4%
NVS 310 0.64

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

FX 4600 430
+73.4%
NVS 310 248

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.11 0.64
Recency 5 March 2007 26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount 768 MB 512 MB
Chip lithography 90 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 134 Watt 20 Watt

FX 4600 has a 73.4% higher aggregate performance score, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 125% more advanced lithography process, and 570% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 4600 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.


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 Quadro FX 4600
Quadro FX 4600
NVIDIA NVS 310
NVS 310

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.


3.8 12 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 69 votes

Rate NVS 310 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.