Radeon RX 6900 XT vs HD 6310

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6310 with Radeon RX 6900 XT, including specs and performance data.

HD 6310
2010
18 Watt
0.32

RX 6900 XT outperforms HD 6310 by a whopping 21606% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking131122
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data29.90
Power efficiency1.2215.86
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameLovelandNavi 21
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date9 November 2010 (14 years ago)28 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores805120
Core clock speed276 MHz1825 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2250 MHz
Number of transistors450 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate2.208720.0
Floating-point processing power0.04416 TFLOPS23.04 TFLOPS
ROPs4128
TMUs8320
Ray Tracing Coresno data80

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data512.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.06.5
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.22.1
VulkanN/A1.2

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.

HD 6310 0.32
RX 6900 XT 69.46
+21606%

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.

HD 6310 122
RX 6900 XT 26764
+21838%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

HD 6310 251
RX 6900 XT 59119
+23453%

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 HD0−1196
1440p0−1130
4K-0−181

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data5.10
1440pno data7.68
4Kno data12.33

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6650%
130−140
+6650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−3800%
117
+3800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−5850%
110−120
+5850%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6650%
130−140
+6650%
Hitman 3 4−5
−3125%
120−130
+3125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−3063%
250−260
+3063%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−7225%
290−300
+7225%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−443%
150−160
+443%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−9200%
279
+9200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−5850%
110−120
+5850%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6650%
130−140
+6650%
Hitman 3 4−5
−3125%
120−130
+3125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−3063%
250−260
+3063%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−7225%
290−300
+7225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−1556%
140−150
+1556%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−443%
150−160
+443%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−3167%
98
+3167%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−5850%
110−120
+5850%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6650%
130−140
+6650%
Hitman 3 4−5
−3125%
120−130
+3125%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−3438%
283
+3438%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−7225%
290−300
+7225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−1722%
164
+1722%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−332%
121
+332%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 70−75
Hitman 3 6−7
−1583%
100−110
+1583%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−11100%
224
+11100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−5600%
110−120
+5600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−6700%
68
+6700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 66

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−3650%
75−80
+3650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 169
+0%
169
+0%
Battlefield 5 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 142
+0%
142
+0%
Battlefield 5 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 137
+0%
137
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 248
+0%
248
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 99
+0%
99
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 109
+0%
109
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Metro Exodus 117
+0%
117
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Hitman 3 83
+0%
83
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Metro Exodus 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 122
+0%
122
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 162
+0%
162
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 54
+0%
54
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6900 XT is 11100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6900 XT is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.32 69.46
Recency 9 November 2010 28 October 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 300 Watt

HD 6310 has 1566.7% lower power consumption.

RX 6900 XT, on the other hand, has a 21606.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6900 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6310 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon HD 6310 is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6900 XT is a desktop one.


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.


AMD Radeon HD 6310
Radeon HD 6310
AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT
Radeon RX 6900 XT

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.8 258 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 3762 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6900 XT 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.