RTX A500 Mobile vs NVS 310
Aggregate performance score
We've compared NVS 310 with RTX A500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.
RTX A500 Mobile outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 2319% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1151 | 321 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Ampere (2020−2022) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | GA107 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 June 2012 (12 years ago) | 30 March 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | no data |
| Current price | $80 (0.5x MSRP) | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 523 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1537 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 60 Watt (20 - 60 Watt TGP) |
| Texture fill rate | 4.184 | 98.37 |
| Floating-point performance | 100.4 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on NVS 310 and RTX A500 Mobile compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 156 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14 GB/s | 96 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.6 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 2.1 | 8.6 |
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 | 2−3
−2900%
| 60
+2900%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−3000%
| 31
+3000%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 24−27 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 24−27 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4100%
|
40−45
+4100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2333%
|
70−75
+2333%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−3000%
|
60−65
+3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4200%
|
40−45
+4200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 3−4
−2467%
|
77
+2467%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 24−27 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−4100%
|
40−45
+4100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2333%
|
70−75
+2333%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−3000%
|
60−65
+3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
−2500%
|
50−55
+2500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4200%
|
40−45
+4200%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
−3000%
|
62
+3000%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−2750%
|
57
+2750%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
−2500%
|
24−27
+2500%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 24−27 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−3500%
|
35−40
+3500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−2333%
|
70−75
+2333%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3
−3000%
|
60−65
+3000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 2−3
−2600%
|
54
+2600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−3000%
|
31
+3000%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
−2400%
|
50−55
+2400%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−4200%
|
40−45
+4200%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−2800%
|
27−30
+2800%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 12−14 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−2900%
|
30−33
+2900%
|
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
−3000%
|
30−35
+3000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 10−11 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−2400%
|
24−27
+2400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Hitman 3 | 0−1 | 10−12 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 9−10 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 7−8 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 3−4 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 8−9 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 16−18 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 14−16 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 6−7 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 14−16 |
This is how NVS 310 and RTX A500 Mobile compete in popular games:
- RTX A500 Mobile is 2900% faster in 1080p
- RTX A500 Mobile is 3000% faster in 1440p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.64 | 15.48 |
| Recency | 26 June 2012 | 30 March 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 8 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 60 Watt |
The RTX A500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.
Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation card while RTX A500 Mobile is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
