NVS 310 vs Radeon RX 460

Place in the ranking	447	1197
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.12	0.04
Power efficiency	9.69	2.34
Architecture	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Baffin	GF119
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	8 August 2016 (8 years ago)	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$86	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

RX 460 has 2700% better value for money than NVS 310.

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	896	48
Core clock speed	1090 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,000 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	67.20	4.184
Floating-point processing power	2.15 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	56	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).

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	170 mm	156 mm
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	112.0 GB/s	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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort	2x DisplayPort
HDMI	+	-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	-	2.1

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.

RX 460 9.18
+1456%

NVS 310 0.59

Passmark

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.

RX 460 4101
+1459%

NVS 310 263

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	41 +1950%	2−3 −1950%
1440p	50 +1567%	3−4 −1567%
4K	20 +1900%	1−2 −1900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	2.10 +3690%	79.50 −3690%
1440p	1.72 +2981%	53.00 −2981%
4K	4.30 +3598%	159.00 −3598%

RX 460 has 3690% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 460 has 2981% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 460 has 3598% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset
Full HD
Medium Preset
Full HD
High Preset
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Full HD
Epic Preset
1440p
High Preset
1440p
Ultra Preset
1440p
Epic Preset
4K
High Preset
4K
Ultra Preset
4K
Epic Preset

Counter-Strike 2	50−55 +1667%	3−4 −1667%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Hogwarts Legacy	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%

Battlefield 5	40−45 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Counter-Strike 2	50−55 +1667%	3−4 −1667%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Far Cry 5	40 +1900%	2−3 −1900%
Fortnite	116 +1557%	7−8 −1557%
Forza Horizon 4	57 +1800%	3−4 −1800%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Hogwarts Legacy	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	36 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Valorant	90−95 +1467%	6−7 −1467%

Battlefield 5	40−45 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Counter-Strike 2	50−55 +1667%	3−4 −1667%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	140−150 +1556%	9−10 −1556%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Dota 2	70−75 +1675%	4−5 −1675%
Far Cry 5	37 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Fortnite	39 +1850%	2−3 −1850%
Forza Horizon 4	54 +1700%	3−4 −1700%
Forza Horizon 5	30−35 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
Grand Theft Auto V	35 +1650%	2−3 −1650%
Hogwarts Legacy	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Metro Exodus	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	28 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	37 +1750%	2−3 −1750%
Valorant	90−95 +1467%	6−7 −1467%

Battlefield 5	40−45 +2100%	2−3 −2100%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Dota 2	70−75 +1675%	4−5 −1675%
Far Cry 5	34 +1600%	2−3 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	41 +1950%	2−3 −1950%
Hogwarts Legacy	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	20 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +2200%	1−2 −2200%
Valorant	90−95 +1467%	6−7 −1467%

Fortnite

31
+3000%

1−2

−3000%

Counter-Strike 2	18−20 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	75−80 +1800%	4−5 −1800%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16	0−1
Metro Exodus	10−12	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	50−55 +1600%	3−4 −1600%
Valorant	110−120 +1471%	7−8 −1471%

Battlefield 5	24−27 +2400%	1−2 −2400%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9	0−1
Far Cry 5	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Hogwarts Legacy	10−12	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16	0−1

Fortnite

21−24
+2000%

1−2

−2000%

Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	21−24 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6	0−1
Metro Exodus	6−7	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12	0−1
Valorant	50−55 +1633%	3−4 −1633%

Battlefield 5	12−14	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Dota 2	35−40 +1700%	2−3 −1700%
Far Cry 5	11	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Hogwarts Legacy	5−6	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	9−10	0−1

Fortnite

9−10

0−1

This is how RX 460 and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

RX 460 is 1950% faster in 1080p
RX 460 is 1567% faster in 1440p
RX 460 is 1900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	9.18	0.59
Recency	8 August 2016	26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	20 Watt

RX 460 has a 1455.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has 275% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 460 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 460 is a desktop card while NVS 310 is a workstation one.