Radeon HD 6310 vs GeForce GTX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 480 with Radeon HD 6310, including specs and performance data.
GTX 480 outperforms HD 6310 by a whopping 3262% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 490 | 1390 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.43 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 3.00 | 1.24 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | Loveland |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 March 2010 (15 years ago) | 9 November 2010 (15 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 480 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 276 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 450 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 42.06 | 2.208 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.345 TFLOPS | 0.04416 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 4 |
| TMUs | 60 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
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 | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | no data |
| 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1848 MHz (3696 data rate) | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
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
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+276%
|
24−27
−276%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+5200%
|
1−2
−5200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+1038%
|
12−14
−1038%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+689%
|
9−10
−689%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+3600%
|
1−2
−3600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+276%
|
24−27
−276%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+4300%
|
1−2
−4300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+689%
|
9−10
−689%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+1333%
|
3−4
−1333%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+276%
|
24−27
−276%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+1600%
|
3−4
−1600%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+3533%
|
3−4
−3533%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+3500%
|
1−2
−3500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 480 is 2500% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 480 surpassed HD 6310 in all 30 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.75 | 0.29 |
| Recency | 26 March 2010 | 9 November 2010 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 18 Watt |
GTX 480 has a 3262.1% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 6310, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 months, and 1288.9% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6310 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 480 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 6310 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
