GeForce 310M vs Radeon RX 550
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 519 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 13 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.04 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | Lexa | N11M-GE1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 20 April 2017 (7 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $79 | no data |
| Current price | $121 (1.5x MSRP) | $163 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 cores | 512 | 16 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1100 MHz | 606 / 625 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1183 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,200 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 37.86 | 4.848 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,211 gflops | 48.96 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon RX 550 and GeForce 310M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR3, DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7000 MHz | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 112.0 GB/s | 10.67 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 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 compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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%
Radeon RX 550 outperforms GeForce 310M by 2271% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 April 2017 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 14 Watt |
We couldn't decide between Radeon RX 550 and GeForce 310M. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon RX 550 is a desktop card while GeForce 310M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
