GeForce 310M vs Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge) and GeForce 310M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R2 (Stoney Ridge) outperforms 310M by a whopping 213% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1167 | 1381 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 4.88 | 1.67 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Stoney Ridge | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2016 (9 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
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 | 128 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 606 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 600 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3100 Million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.04896 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
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).
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 10.67 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+19.2%
|
24−27
−19.2%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 24−27
+71.4%
|
14−16
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+19.2%
|
24−27
−19.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+19.2%
|
24−27
−19.2%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R2 (Stoney Ridge) is 233% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R2 (Stoney Ridge) performs better in 25 tests (93%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.94 | 0.30 |
| Recency | 1 June 2016 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 14 Watt |
R2 (Stoney Ridge) has a 213.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has 7.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
