Radeon Pro WX 3200 vs NVS 310

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 310 and Radeon Pro WX 3200, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 310
2012
512 MB DDR3, 20 Watt
0.64

Pro WX 3200 outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 841% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1195588
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0412.85
Power efficiency2.296.63
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code nameGF119Polaris 23
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date26 June 2012 (12 years ago)2 July 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 $199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

Pro WX 3200 has 32025% better value for money than NVS 310.

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 cores48640
Core clock speed523 MHz1082 MHz
Number of transistors292 million2,200 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate4.18434.62
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPS1.385 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs832

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x8
Length156 mmno data
Width1-slotMXM Module
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed875 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth14 GB/s64 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors2x DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.1-

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.

NVS 310 0.64
Pro WX 3200 6.02
+841%

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.

NVS 310 255
Pro WX 3200 2414
+847%

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 HD1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
4K0−19

Cost per frame, $

1080p159.00
−1258%
11.71
+1258%
4Kno data22.11
  • Pro WX 3200 has 1258% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Far Cry 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Fortnite 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 4
+0%
4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
World of Tanks 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
World of Tanks 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Metro Exodus 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 9
+0%
9
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%

This is how NVS 310 and Pro WX 3200 compete in popular games:

  • Pro WX 3200 is 1600% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.64 6.02
Recency 26 June 2012 2 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 65 Watt

NVS 310 has 225% lower power consumption.

Pro WX 3200, on the other hand, has a 840.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro WX 3200 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.


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.


NVIDIA NVS 310
NVS 310
AMD Radeon Pro WX 3200
Radeon Pro WX 3200

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.


3.3 85 votes

Rate NVS 310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 85 votes

Rate Radeon Pro WX 3200 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.