NVS 310 vs Radeon R9 390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 390 with NVS 310, including specs and performance data.

R9 390
2015
0 MB GDDR5, 275 Watt
23.09
+3508%

R9 390 outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 3508% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking2221154
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation12.47no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGrenadaGF119
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Designreferenceno data
Release date18 June 2015 (9 years ago)26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$329 $159
Current price$20 (0.1x MSRP)$80 (0.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

R9 390 and NVS 310 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores256048
Core clock speedno data523 MHz
Boost clock speed1000 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,200 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt20 Watt
Texture fill rate160.04.184
Floating-point performance5,120 gflops100.4 gflops

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length275 mm156 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pin, 1 x 8-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire1no data

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
High bandwidth memory (HBM)-no data
Maximum RAM amount0 MB512 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth384 GB/s14 GB/s

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 DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort2x DisplayPort
Eyefinity1no data
Number of Eyefinity displays6no data
HDMI+no data
DisplayPort support+no data

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration-no data
CrossFire1no data
Enduro-no data
FreeSync1no data
HD3D-no data
PowerTune+no data
TrueAudio+no data
ZeroCore-no data
VCE+no data
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (11_0)
Shader Model6.35.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+no data
CUDAno data2.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

R9 390 23.09
+3508%
NVS 310 0.64

Radeon R9 390 outperforms NVS 310 by 3508% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

R9 390 8915
+3524%
NVS 310 246

Radeon R9 390 outperforms NVS 310 by 3524% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 23.09 0.64
Recency 18 June 2015 26 June 2012
Cost $329 $159
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 20 Watt

R9 390 has a 3507.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has its recommended price lower by $170, and 1275% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 390 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 390 is a desktop card while NVS 310 is a workstation 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 R9 390
Radeon R9 390
NVIDIA NVS 310
NVS 310

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.


4.2 540 votes

Rate Radeon R9 390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 67 votes

Rate NVS 310 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.