GeForce4 MX 4000 vs GeForce 310M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 310M with GeForce4 MX 4000, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 310M
2010
Up to 1 GB DDR3, 14 Watt
0.31
+3000%

310M outperforms GeForce4 MX 4000 by a whopping 3000% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13231515
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.52no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Celsius (1999−2005)
GPU code nameGT218NV18 A4
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)14 December 2003 (21 year 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 cores16no data
Core clock speed606 MHz250 MHz
Number of transistors260 million29 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Wattno data
Texture fill rate4.8481.000
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPSno data
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs42
TMUs84

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16AGP 8x
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeDDR3DDR
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB128 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz166 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s2.656 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI1x VGA
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)8.0
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.31.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/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.

GeForce 310M 0.31
+3000%
GeForce4 MX 4000 0.01

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.

GeForce 310M 118
+2850%
GeForce4 MX 4000 4

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 0.01
Recency 10 January 2010 14 December 2003
Chip lithography 40 nm 150 nm

GeForce 310M has a 3000% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce 310M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 MX 4000 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook card while GeForce4 MX 4000 is a desktop 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.


NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 4000
GeForce4 MX 4000

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.


2.9 454 votes

Rate GeForce 310M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 939 votes

Rate GeForce4 MX 4000 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.