GeForce RTX 5050 vs NVS 310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared NVS 310 with GeForce RTX 5050, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5050 outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 6094% 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 | 1234 | 117 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 51 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 95.50 |
| Power efficiency | 2.51 | 23.91 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | GB207 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Desktop |
| Release date | 26 June 2012 (13 years ago) | 24 June 2025 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | $249 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
RTX 5050 has 477400% better value for money than NVS 310.
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 | 48 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 523 MHz | 2317 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2572 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 16,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 130 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.184 | 205.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1004 TFLOPS | 13.17 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 80 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 80 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 20 |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB | 2.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 24 MB |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 5.0 x8 |
| Length | 156 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 8-pin |
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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 875 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 2x DisplayPort | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 38.40 |
| Recency | 26 June 2012 | 24 June 2025 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 130 Watt |
NVS 310 has 550% lower power consumption.
RTX 5050, on the other hand, has a 6093.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5050 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.
Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 5050 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
