GeForce 310M vs Radeon RX Vega 10

Place in the ranking	680	1324
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	29.51	1.50
Architecture	GCN 5.0 (2017−2020)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	Raven	GT218
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	8 January 2019 (5 years ago)	10 January 2010 (14 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	640	16
Core clock speed	300 MHz	606 MHz
Boost clock speed	1301 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	4,940 million	260 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	14 Watt
Texture fill rate	52.04	4.848
Floating-point processing power	1.665 TFLOPS	0.04896 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	73
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	40	8

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	IGP	PCIe 2.0 x16
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	System Shared	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	Up to 1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	10.67 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 Connectors	No outputs	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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	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	-	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

RX Vega 10 4.23
+1310%

GeForce 310M 0.30

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 Vega 10 1632
+1319%

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 Vega 10 11391
+914%

GeForce 310M 1123

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 HD

17
+1600%

1−2

−1600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12
+500%

2−3

−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9 +200%	3−4 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12	0−1
Battlefield 5	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	15 +650%	2−3 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Far Cry 5	11	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	45 +1400%	3−4 −1400%
Hitman 3	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +250%	8−9 −250%
Metro Exodus	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	20 +400%	4−5 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	63 +125%	27−30 −125%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14 +367%	3−4 −367%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	8	0−1
Battlefield 5	8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry 5	9	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	34 +1600%	2−3 −1600%
Hitman 3	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 +250%	8−9 −250%
Metro Exodus	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16−18 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	41 +46.4%	27−30 −46.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry 5	9−10	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Hitman 3	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Horizon Zero Dawn	11 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12 +200%	4−5 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −12.5%	9−10 +12.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	40−45 +57.1%	27−30 −57.1%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−12

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	6−7	0−1
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +400%	2−3 −400%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	24−27 +2500%	1−2 −2500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	0−1	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	3−4	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

This is how RX Vega 10 and GeForce 310M compete in popular games:

RX Vega 10 is 1600% faster in 1080p

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

in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 10 is 650% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 310M is 13% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 10 is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
GeForce 310M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.23	0.30
Recency	8 January 2019	10 January 2010
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	14 Watt

RX Vega 10 has a 1310% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 10 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.