GeForce 310M vs Radeon R7 (Carrizo)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 (Carrizo) and GeForce 310M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R7 (Carrizo)
2015
12 Watt
2.01
+548%

R7 (Carrizo) outperforms 310M by a whopping 548% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8911325
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.941.52
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameCarrizoGT218
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date4 June 2015 (9 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 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 cores51216
Core clock speedno data606 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistors2410 Million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-35 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rateno data4.848
Floating-point processing powerno data0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno dataUp to 1 GB
Memory bus width64/128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno dataUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidthno data10.67 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 dataDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-+

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.

R7 (Carrizo) 2.01
+548%
GeForce 310M 0.31

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.

R7 (Carrizo) 5200
+363%
GeForce 310M 1123

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 HD10
+900%
1−2
−900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+25%
27−30
−25%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+25%
27−30
−25%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+113%
8−9
−113%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+25%
27−30
−25%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1

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 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 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
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how R7 (Carrizo) and GeForce 310M compete in popular games:

  • R7 (Carrizo) is 900% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R7 (Carrizo) is 200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R7 (Carrizo) surpassed GeForce 310M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.01 0.31
Recency 4 June 2015 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 14 Watt

R7 (Carrizo) has a 548.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 16.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M 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.


AMD Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
Radeon R7 (Carrizo)
NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M

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.


3.4 7 votes

Rate Radeon R7 (Carrizo) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 454 votes

Rate GeForce 310M 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.