Radeon RX 6600 vs GeForce 310M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 310M with Radeon RX 6600, including specs and performance data.

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

RX 6600 outperforms 310M by a whopping 12584% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1325113
Place by popularitynot in top-10013
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data67.37
Power efficiency1.5220.41
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT218Navi 23
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)13 October 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$329

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 cores161792
Core clock speed606 MHz1626 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2491 MHz
Number of transistors260 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt132 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848279.0
Floating-point processing power0.04896 TFLOPS8.928 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs464
TMUs8112
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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
Lengthno data190 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 1 GB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth10.67 GB/s224.0 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
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)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.2
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
RX 6600 39.32
+12584%

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
RX 6600 15147
+12736%

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
RX 6600 94734
+8336%

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 HD0−1113
1440p-0−157
4K-0−131

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.91
1440pno data5.77
4Kno data10.61

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−5250%
107
+5250%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2667%
80−85
+2667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3850%
75−80
+3850%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−4450%
91
+4450%
Hitman 3 4−5
−2375%
99
+2375%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1938%
160−170
+1938%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−3475%
140−150
+3475%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−361%
120−130
+361%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2667%
80−85
+2667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3850%
75−80
+3850%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3550%
73
+3550%
Hitman 3 4−5
−2275%
95
+2275%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1938%
160−170
+1938%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−4450%
182
+4450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−800%
80−85
+800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−361%
120−130
+361%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2667%
80−85
+2667%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3850%
75−80
+3850%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2850%
59
+2850%
Hitman 3 4−5
−2050%
86
+2050%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1675%
142
+1675%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−3825%
157
+3825%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−900%
90
+900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−107%
58
+107%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 34
Hitman 3 6−7
−800%
54
+800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−5000%
102
+5000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−3250%
65−70
+3250%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2600%
27−30
+2600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 24

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1650%
35−40
+1650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 113
+0%
113
+0%
Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Metro Exodus 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 92
+0%
92
+0%
Battlefield 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
Metro Exodus 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 78
+0%
78
+0%
Far Cry 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 52
+0%
52
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Metro Exodus 97
+0%
97
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 101
+0%
101
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Hitman 3 36
+0%
36
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+0%
44
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 53
+0%
53
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 21
+0%
21
+0%

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX 6600 is 5250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6600 is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 39.32
Recency 10 January 2010 13 October 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 132 Watt

GeForce 310M has 842.9% lower power consumption.

RX 6600, on the other hand, has a 12583.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 310M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6600 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
AMD Radeon RX 6600
Radeon RX 6600

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
4.3 9753 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6600 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.