Radeon RX 590 vs NVS 310

Place in the ranking	1189	232
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.04	24.35
Power efficiency	2.27	9.61
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 60775% 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 0.66

RX 590 24.42
+3600%

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

RX 590 9387
+3581%

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 −5000%	102 +5000%
1440p	1−2 −6000%	61 +6000%
4K	1−2 −3600%	37 +3600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	79.50 −2806%	2.74 +2806%
1440p	159.00 −3376%	4.57 +3376%
4K	159.00 −2009%	7.54 +2009%

RX 590 has 2806% lower cost per frame in 1080p
RX 590 has 3376% lower cost per frame in 1440p
RX 590 has 2009% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Elden Ring	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	87 +0%	87 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	137 +0%	137 +0%
Metro Exodus	88 +0%	88 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	91 +0%	91 +0%
Valorant	128 +0%	128 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	129 +0%	129 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	52 +0%	52 +0%
Elden Ring	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Fortnite	116 +0%	116 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	114 +0%	114 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	79 +0%	79 +0%
Metro Exodus	60 +0%	60 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	239 +0%	239 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	39 +0%	39 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Valorant	64 +0%	64 +0%
World of Tanks	250−260 +0%	250−260 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	71 +0%	71 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Dota 2	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Far Cry 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	100 +0%	100 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	79 +0%	79 +0%
Valorant	110 +0%	110 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Elden Ring	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +0%	170−180 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	25 +0%	25 +0%
World of Tanks	160−170 +0%	160−170 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	20−22 +0%	20−22 +0%
Far Cry 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	70 +0%	70 +0%
Metro Exodus	58 +0%	58 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Valorant	75 +0%	75 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Dota 2	41 +0%	41 +0%
Elden Ring	18−20 +0%	18−20 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	41 +0%	41 +0%
Metro Exodus	19 +0%	19 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	82 +0%	82 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16 +0%	16 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	41 +0%	41 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30 +0%	30 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	21−24 +0%	21−24 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Far Cry 5	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Fortnite	34 +0%	34 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	40 +0%	40 +0%
Valorant	39 +0%	39 +0%

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

RX 590 is 5000% faster in 1080p
RX 590 is 6000% faster in 1440p
RX 590 is 3600% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.66	24.42
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 3600% 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.