Radeon RX 6500 XT vs NVS 310

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 310 with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 310
2012
512 MB DDR3, 20 Watt
0.63

RX 6500 XT outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 3557% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1199238
Place by popularitynot in top-10059
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0455.89
Power efficiency2.3115.77
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGF119Navi 24
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date26 June 2012 (12 years ago)19 January 2022 (3 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.

RX 6500 XT has 139625% 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 cores481024
Core clock speed523 MHz2610 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2815 MHz
Number of transistors292 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt107 Watt
Texture fill rate4.184180.2
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPS5.765 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs864
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 4.0 x4
Length156 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed875 MHz2248 MHz
Memory bandwidth14 GB/s143.9 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

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 DisplayPort1x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
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.

NVS 310 0.63
RX 6500 XT 23.04
+3557%

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 310 263
RX 6500 XT 9567
+3538%

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
−6200%
63
+6200%
1440p0−131
4K-0−117

Cost per frame, $

1080p159.00
−4934%
3.16
+4934%
1440pno data6.42
4Kno data11.71
  • RX 6500 XT has 4934% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 281
+0%
281
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 72
+0%
72
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 80
+0%
80
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 194
+0%
194
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+0%
54
+0%
Far Cry 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 107
+0%
107
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 60
+0%
60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 82
+0%
82
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
+0%
34
+0%
Dota 2 145
+0%
145
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 81
+0%
81
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+0%
86
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 48
+0%
48
+0%
Metro Exodus 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
+0%
92
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Dota 2 110
+0%
110
+0%
Far Cry 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54
+0%
54
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 23
+0%
23
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 34
+0%
34
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 11
+0%
11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Dota 2 67
+0%
67
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 9
+0%
9
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

This is how NVS 310 and RX 6500 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6500 XT is 6200% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 66 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.63 23.04
Recency 26 June 2012 19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 107 Watt

NVS 310 has 435% lower power consumption.

RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 3557.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6500 XT 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 6500 XT is a desktop one.

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 RX 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT

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 88 votes

Rate NVS 310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 3494 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6500 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 310 or Radeon RX 6500 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.