GeForce 310M vs GTX 260
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 260 with GeForce 310M, including specs and performance data.
GTX 260 outperforms 310M by a whopping 923% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 753 | 1327 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.20 | 1.52 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | GT218 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | 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 | 192 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 606 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 36.86 | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4769 TFLOPS | 0.04896 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | 28 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 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 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 111.9 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 | Dual Link DVIHDTV | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | + | + |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| World of Tanks | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 32 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.17 | 0.31 |
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 14 Watt |
GTX 260 has a 922.6% higher aggregate performance score.
GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1200% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 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.
