GeForce 310M vs Radeon R9 M390

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M390 and GeForce 310M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M390
2015
2 GB GDDR5
8.96
+2887%

R9 M390 outperforms 310M by a whopping 2887% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5221381
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.65
ArchitectureGCN (2012−2015)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code namePitcairnGT218
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date9 June 2015 (10 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 cores102416
Core clock speedno data606 MHz
Number of transistors5000 Million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data14 Watt
Texture fill rateno data4.848
Floating-point processing powerno data0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8
L2 Cacheno data32 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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0PCI-E 2.0
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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
Maximum RAM amount2 GBUp to 1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedno dataUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidthno data10.67 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 Connectorsno dataDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
Eyefinity+-
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-
Power managementno data8.0

API and SDK support

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
Vulkan-N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-+

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 HD43
+4200%
1−2
−4200%
4K200−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 40−45
+3900%
1−2
−3900%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Far Cry 5 27−30 0−1
Fortnite 55−60
+5400%
1−2
−5400%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
Valorant 85−90
+242%
24−27
−242%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 40−45
+3900%
1−2
−3900%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 140−150
+900%
14−16
−900%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Dota 2 65−70
+644%
9−10
−644%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Far Cry 5 27−30 0−1
Fortnite 55−60
+5400%
1−2
−5400%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
Forza Horizon 5 27−30 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 34
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Metro Exodus 18−20 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+520%
5−6
−520%
Valorant 85−90
+242%
24−27
−242%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 40−45
+3900%
1−2
−3900%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Dota 2 65−70
+644%
9−10
−644%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+3600%
1−2
−3600%
Far Cry 5 27−30 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+1233%
3−4
−1233%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+371%
7−8
−371%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18
+260%
5−6
−260%
Valorant 85−90
+242%
24−27
−242%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+5400%
1−2
−5400%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+467%
3−4
−467%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 70−75 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 12−14 0−1
Metro Exodus 10−11 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+1467%
3−4
−1467%
Valorant 100−110
+3267%
3−4
−3267%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8 0−1
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+2100%
1−2
−2100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 18−20 0−1

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22
+42.9%
14−16
−42.9%
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12 0−1
Valorant 45−50
+2300%
2−3
−2300%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 10−12 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 3−4 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Escape from Tarkov 8−9 0−1
Far Cry 5 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%

This is how R9 M390 and GeForce 310M compete in popular games:

  • R9 M390 is 4200% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M390 is 2300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, R9 M390 surpassed GeForce 310M in all 27 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.96 0.30
Recency 9 June 2015 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R9 M390 has a 2886.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M390 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.

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 M390
Radeon R9 M390
NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M

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.


3.4 14 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M390 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 496 votes

Rate GeForce 310M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R9 M390 or GeForce 310M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.