NVS 3100M vs HD Graphics 610

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 610 with NVS 3100M, including specs and performance data.

HD Graphics 610
2016
32 GB DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4, 5 Watt
1.85
+249%

HD Graphics 610 outperforms NVS 3100M by a whopping 249% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9181229
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency25.472.61
ArchitectureGeneration 9.5 (2016−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameKaby Lake GT1GT218
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date30 August 2016 (8 years ago)7 January 2010 (15 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 cores9616
Core clock speed300 MHz606 MHz
Boost clock speed900 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm++40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)5 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate10.804.848
Floating-point processing power0.1728 TFLOPS0.04698 TFLOPS
ROPs24
TMUs128

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).

InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount32 GB512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.64 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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentNo outputs

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL3.01.1
Vulkan1.3N/A
CUDA-1.2

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.

HD Graphics 610 1.85
+249%
NVS 3100M 0.53

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.

HD Graphics 610 712
+249%
NVS 3100M 204

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.

HD Graphics 610 3715
+232%
NVS 3100M 1121

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 HD7
+250%
2−3
−250%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Elden Ring 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Metro Exodus 2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 4
+300%
1−2
−300%
Elden Ring 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 7
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
Grand Theft Auto V 3−4 0−1
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%
Red Dead Redemption 2 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
World of Tanks 35−40
+125%
16−18
−125%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 3−4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Dota 2 11
+267%
3−4
−267%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+71.4%
7−8
−71.4%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+66.7%
6−7
−66.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+138%
8−9
−138%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
World of Tanks 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Valorant 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Elden Ring 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 0−1 0−1
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how HD Graphics 610 and NVS 3100M compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 610 is 250% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 610 is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 610 is ahead in 27 tests (82%)
  • there's a draw in 6 tests (18%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.85 0.53
Recency 30 August 2016 7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 32 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 5 Watt 14 Watt

HD Graphics 610 has a 249.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 180% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 610 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 610 is a notebook graphics card while NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel HD Graphics 610
HD Graphics 610
NVIDIA NVS 3100M
NVS 3100M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 537 votes

Rate HD Graphics 610 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 134 votes

Rate NVS 3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.