GeForce 310M vs FirePro W4190M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W4190M with GeForce 310M, including specs and performance data.

W4190M
2015
2 GB GDDR5
3.01
+871%

W4190M outperforms 310M by a whopping 871% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7811320
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.52
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameOpalGT218
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date12 November 2015 (9 years ago)10 January 2010 (15 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 cores38416
Core clock speed825 MHz606 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data14 Watt
Texture fill rate21.604.848
Floating-point processing power0.6912 TFLOPS0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs84
TMUs248

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GBUp to 1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHzUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/s10.67 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 outputsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual 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.

AppAcceleration+-
Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/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.

W4190M 3.01
+871%
GeForce 310M 0.31

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.

W4190M 1155
+855%
GeForce 310M 121

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 HD13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Valorant 4−5 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Dota 2 8 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Fortnite 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Metro Exodus 6−7 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 33
+450%
6−7
−450%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Valorant 4−5 0−1
World of Tanks 50−55
+315%
12−14
−315%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Dota 2 8−9 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18
+183%
6−7
−183%
Forza Horizon 4 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 27−30
+350%
6−7
−350%
Valorant 4−5 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
World of Tanks 21−24
+950%
2−3
−950%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Valorant 10−11
+150%
4−5
−150%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Valorant 3−4 0−1

This is how W4190M and GeForce 310M compete in popular games:

  • W4190M is 1200% 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 W4190M is 950% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • W4190M is ahead in 29 tests (91%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.01 0.31
Recency 12 November 2015 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

W4190M has a 871% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The FirePro W4190M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro W4190M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 310M is a mobile workstation one.


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 FirePro W4190M
FirePro W4190M
NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M

Other comparisons

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 27 votes

Rate FirePro W4190M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 457 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.