NVS 310 vs FirePro W2100

Place in the ranking	851	1191
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.04
Power efficiency	6.23	2.28
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Oland	GF119
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	12 August 2014 (10 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	320	48
Core clock speed	630 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	680 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	950 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	26 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	13.60	4.184
Floating-point processing power	0.4352 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	20	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).

Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	156 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Form factor	low profile / half length	no data
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	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 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	2x DisplayPort	2x DisplayPort
DisplayPort count	2	no data
Dual-link DVI support	+	-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	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. 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.

FirePro W2100 2.35
+256%

NVS 310 0.66

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.

FirePro W2100 903
+254%

NVS 310 255

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

FirePro W2100 3710
+322%

NVS 310 880

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	13 +333%	3−4 −333%
4K	2	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

53.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Dota 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Fortnite	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Valorant	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	40−45 +267%	12−14 −267%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Counter-Strike 2	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Dota 2	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	14−16 +367%	3−4 −367%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Valorant	0−1	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
World of Tanks	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Valorant	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Dota 2	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	2−3	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Dota 2	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Fortnite	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 5	0−1	0−1
Valorant	2−3	0−1

This is how FirePro W2100 and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

FirePro W2100 is 333% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.35	0.66
Recency	12 August 2014	26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	26 Watt	20 Watt

FirePro W2100 has a 256.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has 30% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W2100 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.