GeForce 310M vs GTX 1080 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 1080 Ti with GeForce 310M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 1080 Ti outperforms 310M by a whopping 15400% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 69 | 1320 |
| Place by popularity | 44 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 20.49 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.31 | 1.53 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP102 | GT218 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 March 2017 (7 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $699 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 3584 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1481 MHz | 606 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1582 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 11,800 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 91 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 354.4 | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | 11.34 TFLOPS | 0.04896 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | 88 | 4 |
| TMUs | 224 | 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 | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5X | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 11 GB | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 352 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1376 MHz | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 484.4 GB/s | 10.67 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 Connectors | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/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.
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.
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 | 131 | 0−1 |
| 1440p | 84 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 70 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 5.34 | no data |
| 1440p | 8.32 | no data |
| 4K | 9.99 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+1089%
|
9−10
−1089%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 82 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+1089%
|
9−10
−1089%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 247
+4017%
|
6−7
−4017%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 104 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 90−95
+2175%
|
4−5
−2175%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+19900%
|
1−2
−19900%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 149 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110
+1089%
|
9−10
−1089%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+3433%
|
3−4
−3433%
|
| Dota 2 | 124 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 86
+1333%
|
6−7
−1333%
|
| Fortnite | 190−200
+19700%
|
1−2
−19700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 196
+3167%
|
6−7
−3167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 120 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 86 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 229
+3717%
|
6−7
−3717%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 65
+1525%
|
4−5
−1525%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 85
+1600%
|
5−6
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 123 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+2046%
|
12−14
−2046%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 74 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 60
+567%
|
9−10
−567%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 28
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Dota 2 | 125 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 100−110
+1683%
|
6−7
−1683%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 167
+2683%
|
6−7
−2683%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 120−130 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 109
+1717%
|
6−7
−1717%
|
| Valorant | 179
+17800%
|
1−2
−17800%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 84 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+8650%
|
2−3
−8650%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 41 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 300−350
+30700%
|
1−2
−30700%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 72 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 150−160
+3700%
|
4−5
−3700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 123 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 88 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 90−95
+2200%
|
4−5
−2200%
|
| Valorant | 131
+3175%
|
4−5
−3175%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 27−30
+286%
|
7−8
−286%
|
| Dota 2 | 98
+553%
|
14−16
−553%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 98
+553%
|
14−16
−553%
|
| Metro Exodus | 35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 132
+13100%
|
1−2
−13100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 98
+553%
|
14−16
−553%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 52 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 125
+733%
|
14−16
−733%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 77 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 65 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 72 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 68 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1080 Ti is 13100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 1080 Ti surpassed GeForce 310M in all 32 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 46.50 | 0.30 |
| Recency | 10 March 2017 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 16 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 14 Watt |
GTX 1080 Ti has a 15400% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has 1685.7% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 Ti is a desktop card while GeForce 310M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
