GeForce 310M vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce 310M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms 310M by a whopping 1760% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 629 | 1362 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 28.34 | 1.63 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega Renoir | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 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 cores | 384 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 606 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.04896 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | Up to 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 10.67 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 Connectors | no data | 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 and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| 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 HD | 20
+1900%
| 1−2
−1900%
|
| 1440p | 24
+2300%
| 1−2
−2300%
|
| 4K | 18 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 52
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 16 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 34
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 9 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 97
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
+331%
|
12−14
−331%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+367%
|
9−10
−367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+220%
|
5−6
−220%
|
| Valorant | 73
+192%
|
24−27
−192%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+344%
|
9−10
−344%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
| Valorant | 19
−31.6%
|
24−27
+31.6%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+3300%
|
1−2
−3300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+1167%
|
3−4
−1167%
|
| Valorant | 49
+2350%
|
2−3
−2350%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Sons of the Forest | 3−4 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce 310M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1900% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 2300% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1200% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 310M is 32% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 24 tests (96%)
- GeForce 310M is ahead in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.58 | 0.30 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 14 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 1760% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 310M, on the other hand, has 7.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 310M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
