NVIDIA
Quadro NVS 310 vs GeForce RTX 4060
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
RTX 4060
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 310 and RTX 4060 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Quadro NVS 310 outperforms RTX 4060 by ~14% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+14%
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: Quadro NVS 310 (~14%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Quadro NVS 310
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: Not supported
Reasons to consider RTX 4060
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 8.9 · DLSS 3
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3946
100100
10041
1368
Graphics card ranking
Positions 1–6of 30
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Quadro NVS 310
178 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Quadro NVS 310
Price $65.00Based on catalog performance per unit of current market price, not measured FPS.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
39
46Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
34
40Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
32
37Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
57Better
50
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Power consumptionBetter
Device class
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Recommended PSU
Length
Thickness
TFLOPSBetter
Clock speedBetter
Memory type
Architecture
Transistor count
Die size
Shader units / cores
Memory cache
Power connector—
Release date
Base clockBetter
DisplayPort
HDMI
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Compute API—
Launch price—
Upscaling
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Quadro NVS 310 and RTX 4060 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.
Quadro NVS 310RTX 4060
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
197 FPS
216 FPS
1080p Ultra
138 FPS
152 FPS
1440p Ultra
74 FPS
107 FPS
4K Ultra
27 FPS
32 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Quadro NVS 310197 FPSRTX 4060216 FPSQuadro NVS 310138 FPSRTX 4060152 FPSQuadro NVS 31074 FPSRTX 4060107 FPSQuadro NVS 31027 FPSRTX 406032 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Quadro NVS 310127 FPSRTX 4060139 FPSQuadro NVS 310109 FPSRTX 4060120 FPSQuadro NVS 31054 FPSRTX 406078 FPSQuadro NVS 31018 FPSRTX 406021 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Quadro NVS 310160 FPSRTX 4060176 FPSQuadro NVS 310104 FPSRTX 4060114 FPSQuadro NVS 31067 FPSRTX 406097 FPSQuadro NVS 31039 FPSRTX 406046 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyQuadro NVS 310104 FPSRTX 4060114 FPSQuadro NVS 31087 FPSRTX 406095 FPSQuadro NVS 31048 FPSRTX 406070 FPSQuadro NVS 31018 FPSRTX 406022 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100394616%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100325553%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100325248%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1001368136%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001001000%
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 / 100275670%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100285565%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100325248%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100245883%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100315352%
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
DirectX12.012.2
Vulkan1.21.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedDLSS 3
Compute API—OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 8.9
Architecture and release
ArchitectureNot publicly specifiedAda Lovelace
Process node40 nm5 nmBetter
Release date20122023
Device classProfDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified18900 million
Die sizeNot publicly specified159 mm²
Shader units / coresNot publicly specified3072
Base clock523 MHz1830 MHzBetter
Boost clock523 MHz2460 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 4x8
LengthVaries by board240 mm
ThicknessVaries by boardDual-slot
Recommended PSUVaries by board300 W
Power connector—8 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 2.1
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 1.4a
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitorsVaries by board4
Max resolutionVaries by board7680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM512 MB DDR3Better8 GB GDDR6
Memory typeDDR3GDDR6
Memory bus64 bit128 bitBetter
TFLOPS0.0515.11Better
Other comparisons
RX 6400AMDReviews 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 / 67
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 (4)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (4)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record changed: product_prices
- · 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: Quadro NVS 310 or RTX 4060?+
Quadro NVS 310 has the higher overall gaming score, while Quadro NVS 310 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Quadro NVS 310 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?+
Quadro NVS 310 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Quadro NVS 310 offers more overall performance, while Quadro NVS 310 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Quadro NVS 310 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Quadro NVS 310 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Quadro NVS 310 leads in combined 1440p performance. Quadro NVS 310 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Quadro NVS 310 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Quadro NVS 310 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?+
Quadro NVS 310 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 Quadro NVS 310 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.