Radeon RX 590 vs NVS 310

Place in the ranking	1190	229
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	25.05
Power efficiency	2.23	9.55
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	GCN 4.0 (2016−2020)
GPU code name	GF119	Polaris 30
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)	15 November 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$159	$279

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 590 has 83400% 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 cores	48	2304
Core clock speed	523 MHz	1469 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1545 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	5,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	175 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.184	222.5
Floating-point processing power	0.1004 TFLOPS	7.119 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	8	144

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 3.0 x16
Length	156 mm	241 mm
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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	8 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	875 MHz	2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14 GB/s	256.0 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	-

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 0.65

RX 590 24.38
+3651%

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 310 251

RX 590 9393
+3642%

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 −4950%	101 +4950%
1440p	1−2 −5700%	58 +5700%
4K	0−1	35

Cost per frame, $

1080p	79.50	2.76
1440p	159.00	4.81
4K	no data	7.97

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

+0%

40−45

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	65 +0%	65 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	86 +0%	86 +0%
Battlefield 5	136 +0%	136 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	69 +0%	69 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	90 +0%	90 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	90 +0%	90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	274 +0%	274 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	301 +0%	301 +0%
Metro Exodus	124 +0%	124 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	91 +0%	91 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	140 +0%	140 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	272 +0%	272 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	113 +0%	113 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	73 +0%	73 +0%
Battlefield 5	122 +0%	122 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	64 +0%	64 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	74 +0%	74 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	71 +0%	71 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	259 +0%	259 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	287 +0%	287 +0%
Metro Exodus	97 +0%	97 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	74 +0%	74 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	114 +0%	114 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	261 +0%	261 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	39 +0%	39 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	62 +0%	62 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	46 +0%	46 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	55 +0%	55 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	91 +0%	91 +0%
Hitman 3	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	96 +0%	96 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	100 +0%	100 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	51 +0%	51 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35 +0%	35 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27 +0%	24−27 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55 +0%	55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	38 +0%	38 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
Hitman 3	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	72 +0%	72 +0%
Metro Exodus	58 +0%	58 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	70 +0%	70 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	203 +0%	203 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	39 +0%	39 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	26 +0%	26 +0%
Hitman 3	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	57 +0%	57 +0%
Metro Exodus	36 +0%	36 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	32 +0%	32 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +0%	19 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +0%	42 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	20 +0%	20 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Far Cry 5	17 +0%	17 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	46 +0%	46 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	40 +0%	40 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	13 +0%	13 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how NVS 310 and RX 590 compete in popular games:

RX 590 is 4950% faster in 1080p
RX 590 is 5700% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.65	24.38
Recency	26 June 2012	15 November 2018
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	8 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	175 Watt

NVS 310 has 775% lower power consumption.

RX 590, on the other hand, has a 3650.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 590 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 590 is a desktop one.

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