NVIDIA
Quadro NVS 310 vs Radeon RX 5500
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
RX 5500
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 310 and RX 5500 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Quadro NVS 310 outperforms RX 5500 by ~10% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+10%
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 (~10%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Quadro NVS 310
- Higher catalog performance index
- Lower stated power consumption
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: Not supported
Reasons to consider RX 5500
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · FSR
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3937
10082
100100
1360
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.
Radeon RX 5500
Price $60.00Based 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
39Better
37
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
34Better
33
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
32Better
31
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
82
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
57Better
52
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 RX 5500 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 310RX 5500
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
197 FPS
189 FPS
1080p Ultra
138 FPS
133 FPS
1440p Ultra
74 FPS
77 FPS
4K Ultra
27 FPS
23 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Quadro NVS 310197 FPSRX 5500189 FPSQuadro NVS 310138 FPSRX 5500133 FPSQuadro NVS 31074 FPSRX 550077 FPSQuadro NVS 31027 FPSRX 550023 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Quadro NVS 310127 FPSRX 5500122 FPSQuadro NVS 310109 FPSRX 5500105 FPSQuadro NVS 31054 FPSRX 550056 FPSQuadro NVS 31018 FPSRX 550015 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Quadro NVS 310160 FPSRX 5500154 FPSQuadro NVS 310104 FPSRX 550099 FPSQuadro NVS 31067 FPSRX 550070 FPSQuadro NVS 31039 FPSRX 550034 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyQuadro NVS 310104 FPSRX 550099 FPSQuadro NVS 31087 FPSRX 550083 FPSQuadro NVS 31048 FPSRX 550050 FPSQuadro NVS 31018 FPSRX 550016 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10039375%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100324432%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100324432%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1001360129%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001008220%
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 / 100274856%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100284649%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100324432%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100245070%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100314435%
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
DirectX12.012.1
Vulkan1.21.4
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedFSR
Compute API—OpenCL 2.1
Architecture and release
ArchitectureNot publicly specifiedRDNA 1.0
Process node40 nm7 nmBetter
Release date20122019
Device classProfDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified6400 million
Die sizeNot publicly specified158 mm²
Shader units / coresNot publicly specified1408
Base clock523 MHz1500 MHzBetter
Boost clock523 MHz1845 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 4x8
LengthVaries by boardVaries by board
ThicknessVaries by boardVaries by board
Recommended PSUVaries by boardVaries by board
Power connector—8 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 2.0b
DisplayPortBoard dependentDisplayPort 1.4
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitorsVaries by boardVaries by board
Max resolutionVaries by board7680 × 4320
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM512 MB DDR3Better4 GB GDDR6
Memory typeDDR3GDDR6
Memory bus64 bit128 bitBetter
TFLOPS0.055.196Better
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 / 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 (5)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · 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 RX 5500?+
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.