GeForce 310M vs Radeon RX 5500 XT

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking231not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation49.83no data
Power efficiency13.38no data
ArchitectureRDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameNavi 14GT218
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 December 2019 (4 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$169 no data

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 cores140816
CUDA coresno data16
Core clock speed1607 MHz606 MHz
Boost clock speed1845 MHzno data
Number of transistors6,400 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate162.44.848
Floating-point processing power5.196 TFLOPS0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs324
TMUs888

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 supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
Length180 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6DDR3
Maximum RAM amount8 GBUp to 1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed14000 MHzUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth224.0 GB/s10.67 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI++
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.54.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


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.

RX 5500 XT 9145
+7852%
GeForce 310M 115

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.

RX 5500 XT 68429
+5993%
GeForce 310M 1123

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 December 2019 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 7 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 14 Watt

RX 5500 XT has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has 828.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX 5500 XT and GeForce 310M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX 5500 XT 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.

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 RX 5500 XT
Radeon RX 5500 XT
NVIDIA GeForce 310M
GeForce 310M

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.


3.8 2757 votes

Rate Radeon RX 5500 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 429 votes

Rate GeForce 310M 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.