NVS 310 vs Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge)

Place in the ranking	832	1183
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	3.74	2.25
Architecture	GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Bristol Ridge	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	1 June 2016 (8 years ago)	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$159

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	384	48
Core clock speed	no data	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	800 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3100 Million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12-45 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	4.184
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	8

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 size	medium sized	no data
Interface	no data	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	156 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	no data	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	512 MB
Memory bus width	64/128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	14 GB/s
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

no data

2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (FL 12_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	1.1
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

11
+450%

2−3

−450%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

79.50

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+400%

1−2

−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	4 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Hitman 3	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +311%	9−10 −311%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Hitman 3	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	13 +333%	3−4 −333%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +311%	9−10 −311%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Hitman 3	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20−22 +300%	5−6 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +311%	9−10 −311%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+400%

1−2

−400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

0−1

This is how R5 (Bristol Ridge) and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

R5 (Bristol Ridge) is 450% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.43	0.65
Recency	1 June 2016	26 June 2012
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	20 Watt

R5 (Bristol Ridge) has a 273.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 66.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 (Bristol Ridge) is a notebook card while NVS 310 is a workstation one.

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