Radeon 680M vs GeForce 310M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 310M and Radeon 680M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

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

680M outperforms 310M by a whopping 5045% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1324340
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.5221.87
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT218Rembrandt+
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)3 January 2023 (1 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 cores16768
Core clock speed606 MHz2000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2200 MHz
Number of transistors260 million13,100 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848105.6
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPS3.379 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs432
TMUs848
Ray Tracing Coresno data12

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVIPortable Device Dependent
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)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.3
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
Radeon 680M 15.95
+5045%

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
Radeon 680M 6146
+5108%

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.

GeForce 310M 1123
Radeon 680M 34600
+2981%

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 HD0−137
1440p-0−117
4K-0−111

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1850%
39
+1850%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1200%
35−40
+1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1350%
29
+1350%
Hitman 3 4−5
−700%
32
+700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−975%
85−90
+975%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1325%
55−60
+1325%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−204%
85−90
+204%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1200%
35−40
+1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−950%
21
+950%
Hitman 3 4−5
−650%
30
+650%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−975%
85−90
+975%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−1075%
47
+1075%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−344%
40−45
+344%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−204%
85−90
+204%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1200%
35−40
+1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−750%
17
+750%
Hitman 3 4−5
−575%
27
+575%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−438%
43
+438%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−900%
40
+900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−167%
24
+167%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+55.6%
18
−55.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 11
Hitman 3 6−7
−233%
20−22
+233%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1350%
27−30
+1350%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−900%
10−11
+900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 8−9

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−650%
14−16
+650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 38
+0%
38
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 31
+0%
31
+0%
Battlefield 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+0%
27
+0%
Far Cry 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27
+0%
27
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+0%
17
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Hitman 3 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14
+0%
14
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 310M is 56% faster.
  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 680M is 1850% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 310M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • Radeon 680M is ahead in 28 tests (40%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 15.95
Recency 10 January 2010 3 January 2023
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 50 Watt

GeForce 310M has 257.1% lower power consumption.

Radeon 680M, on the other hand, has a 5045.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon 680M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.


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
AMD Radeon 680M
Radeon 680M

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
4.2 951 vote

Rate Radeon 680M 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.