Radeon HD 6310 vs GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and Radeon HD 6310, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms HD 6310 by a whopping 7523% 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 | 243 | 1333 |
| Place by popularity | 59 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.85 | 1.22 |
| Architecture | Ampere (2020−2024) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | GN20-P0 | Loveland |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 11 May 2021 (3 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 | 2048 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 1238 MHz | 276 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 450 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 8 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP) | 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 | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 12000 MHz | System Shared |
| Shared memory | - | + |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_2 | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 62 | 0−1 |
| 1440p | 43 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 26 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 170
+8400%
|
2−3
−8400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 66
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 54
+1250%
|
4−5
−1250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 93
+9200%
|
1−2
−9200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 125
+12400%
|
1−2
−12400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 52
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 68 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 110−120
+11400%
|
1−2
−11400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 87
+8600%
|
1−2
−8600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 41
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1171%
|
7−8
−1171%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+519%
|
24−27
−519%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 89
+8800%
|
1−2
−8800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 36 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260
+1838%
|
12−14
−1838%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 41
+4000%
|
1−2
−4000%
|
| Dota 2 | 118
+1211%
|
9−10
−1211%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 64 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 110−120
+11400%
|
1−2
−11400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 77
+7600%
|
1−2
−7600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 86
+8500%
|
1−2
−8500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 31
+675%
|
4−5
−675%
|
| Metro Exodus | 49 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1171%
|
7−8
−1171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 81
+1520%
|
5−6
−1520%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+519%
|
24−27
−519%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 83
+8200%
|
1−2
−8200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 34
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Dota 2 | 112
+1144%
|
9−10
−1144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 61 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 90−95
+2967%
|
3−4
−2967%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 19
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+1171%
|
7−8
−1171%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 46
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
| Valorant | 160−170
+519%
|
24−27
−519%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 110−120
+11400%
|
1−2
−11400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 160−170
+8050%
|
2−3
−8050%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 48 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 29 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+5700%
|
3−4
−5700%
|
| Valorant | 200−210
+9900%
|
2−3
−9900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 66 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 49
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 55−60 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+193%
|
14−16
−193%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 17 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 29 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 130−140
+6600%
|
2−3
−6600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 62 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1150%
|
2−3
−1150%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 6600% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RTX 3050 4GB Mobile surpassed HD 6310 in all 31 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 23.63 | 0.31 |
| Recency | 11 May 2021 | 9 November 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 8 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 18 Watt |
RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 7522.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.
HD 6310, on the other hand, has 233.3% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6310 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
