NVIDIA
GeForce 310M vs Radeon 520
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
Radeon 520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 310M and Radeon 520 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Radeon 520 outperforms GeForce 310M by ~27% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+27%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: GeForce 310M (~5%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider GeForce 310M
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.2 · Not supported
Reasons to consider Radeon 520
- Higher catalog performance index
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.0 / DirectCompute 5.0 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Price / performance
3038
5465
Graphics card ranking
Positions 121–126of 411
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon 520
55 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
30
38Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
28
34Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
26
31Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
33
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
42Better
40
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Release date
HDMI
DisplayPort
Max resolution
Max monitors
USB Type-C
Recommended PSU
DirectX
OpenGL
TFLOPS
Power consumption—
Architecture
Memory type
Compute API
Launch price——
Shader units / cores
Interface
Power connector
Length
Die size
Memory cache
Clock speed—
Base clock
Boost clock
VRAM
Memory frequency—
Memory bus
Memory bandwidth—
Power consumption—
Process node—
Transistor count
Thickness
Device class
Upscaling
Vulkan
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares GeForce 310M and Radeon 520 across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
GeForce 310MRadeon 520
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
150 FPS
157 FPS
1080p Ultra
106 FPS
111 FPS
1440p Ultra
57 FPS
86 FPS
4K Ultra
20 FPS
43 FPS
Counter-Strike 2GeForce 310M150 FPSRadeon 520157 FPSGeForce 310M106 FPSRadeon 520111 FPSGeForce 310M57 FPSRadeon 52086 FPSGeForce 310M20 FPSRadeon 52043 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077GeForce 310M97 FPSRadeon 520102 FPSGeForce 310M84 FPSRadeon 52088 FPSGeForce 310M41 FPSRadeon 52062 FPSGeForce 310M14 FPSRadeon 52029 FPS
Forza Horizon 5GeForce 310M122 FPSRadeon 520128 FPSGeForce 310M79 FPSRadeon 52083 FPSGeForce 310M51 FPSRadeon 52077 FPSGeForce 310M30 FPSRadeon 52063 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyGeForce 310M79 FPSRadeon 52083 FPSGeForce 310M66 FPSRadeon 52069 FPSGeForce 310M37 FPSRadeon 52056 FPSGeForce 310M14 FPSRadeon 52029 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100303824%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100303824%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100343811%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100430200%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001000200%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10036385%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10035388%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100343811%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10037383%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100343811%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX10.112.0
VulkanNot supported1.2
OpenGL3.34.6
UpscalingNot supportedNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.2OpenCL 2.0 / DirectCompute 5.0
Architecture and release
ArchitectureTeslaPolaris
Process node40 nm—
Release date20102017
Device classMobileMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count260 millionNot publicly specified
Die size57 mm²Not publicly specified
Shader units / cores16Not publicly specified
Base clock606 MHzOEM/TGP dependent
Boost clock606 MHzOEM/TGP dependent
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16OEM platform dependent
LengthOEM dependentOEM dependent
ThicknessIGPOEM dependent
Recommended PSUOEM dependentOEM dependent
Power connectorNoneIntegrated laptop power
Display outputs and limits
HDMIOEM dependentOEM dependent
DisplayPortOEM dependentOEM dependent
USB Type-COEM dependentOEM dependent
Max monitorsOEM dependentOEM dependent
Max resolutionDepends on host systemOEM dependent
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM1 GB DDR3OEM configuration dependent
Memory typeGDDR3 / DDR3GDDR5
Memory bus64 bitOEM configuration dependent
TFLOPS0.049OEM/TGP dependent
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 62
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (2)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: GeForce 310M or Radeon 520?+
GeForce 310M has the higher overall gaming score, while Radeon 520 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
GeForce 310M is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
GeForce 310M is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
GeForce 310M offers more overall performance, while GeForce 310M offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
GeForce 310M is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Radeon 520 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
GeForce 310M leads in combined 1440p performance. GeForce 310M can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
GeForce 310M is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
GeForce 310M is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
GeForce 310M is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to GeForce 310M if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.