Radeon HD 6310 vs GeForce GTX 280M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 280M SLI and Radeon HD 6310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTX 280M SLI outperforms HD 6310 by a whopping 978% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 731 | 1315 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.59 | 1.23 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | Loveland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 9 November 2010 (14 years 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 cores | 256 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 585 MHz | 276 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 450 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 2.208 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.04416 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 950 MHz | System Shared |
| 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 | no data | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Valorant | 6−7 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Fortnite | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 60−65
+362%
|
12−14
−362%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20
+217%
|
6−7
−217%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+417%
|
6−7
−417%
|
| Valorant | 6−7 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+100%
|
4−5
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Valorant | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 280M SLI is 1100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTX 280M SLI is ahead in 29 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.45 | 0.32 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 9 November 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 18 Watt |
GTX 280M SLI has a 978.1% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 6310, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 37.5% more advanced lithography process, and 733.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 280M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6310 in performance tests.
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.
