GeForce 310M vs Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire and GeForce 310M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
HD 7970M Crossfire outperforms 310M by a whopping 4639% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 401 | 1400 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 5.68 | 1.71 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Wimbledon XT | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 May 2012 (14 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (16 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2560 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 850 MHz | 606 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.04896 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4800 MHz | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 10.67 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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:
| 900p | 132
+6500%
| 2−3
−6500%
|
| Full HD | 102
+5000%
| 2−3
−5000%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 30−35 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6300%
|
1−2
−6300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+1967%
|
3−4
−1967%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+388%
|
24−27
−388%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6300%
|
1−2
−6300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 190−200
+1314%
|
14−16
−1314%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+944%
|
9−10
−944%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Fortnite | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+1967%
|
3−4
−1967%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+567%
|
6−7
−567%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+388%
|
24−27
−388%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 60−65
+6300%
|
1−2
−6300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Dota 2 | 90−95
+944%
|
9−10
−944%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 60−65
+1967%
|
3−4
−1967%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 55−60
+686%
|
7−8
−686%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 40−45
+567%
|
6−7
−567%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+388%
|
24−27
−388%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 80−85
+8300%
|
1−2
−8300%
|
| Palworld | 35−40
+1067%
|
3−4
−1067%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+1350%
|
2−3
−1350%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 120−130
+4200%
|
3−4
−4200%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+6900%
|
2−3
−6900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 20−22 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 27−30
+80%
|
14−16
−80%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 70−75
+1360%
|
5−6
−1360%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Palworld | 10−12 | 0−1 |
This is how HD 7970M Crossfire and GeForce 310M compete in popular games:
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 6500% faster in 900p
- HD 7970M Crossfire is 5000% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7970M Crossfire is 4200% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, HD 7970M Crossfire surpassed GeForce 310M in all 30 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 14.69 | 0.31 |
| Recency | 1 May 2012 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 200 Watt | 14 Watt |
HD 7970M Crossfire has a 4639% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has 1329% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 7970M Crossfire is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
