AMD
Radeon Pro W6800 vs GeForce 310M
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
GeForce 310M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Pro W6800 and GeForce 310M across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Pro W6800 outperforms GeForce 310M by ~24% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+24%
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: Radeon Pro W6800 (~24%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Pro W6800
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 2.1 · FSR
Reasons to consider GeForce 310M
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.2 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
AMD
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
5430
72100
5154
10043
Graphics card ranking
Positions 1–6of 30
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 310M
54 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
54Better
30
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
45Better
28
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
43Better
26
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
72
100Better
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
52Better
42
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
DisplayPort
HDMI
Device class
Upscaling
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Memory type
Power connector
Release date
Architecture
Thickness
Compute API
Launch price—
Shader units / coresBetter
Interface
Clock speedBetter
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
Recommended PSU
Length
Die sizeBetter
Memory cacheBetter
Transistor countBetter
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Pro W6800 and GeForce 310M 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.
Pro W6800GeForce 310M
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
221 FPS
150 FPS
1080p Ultra
155 FPS
106 FPS
1440p Ultra
121 FPS
57 FPS
4K Ultra
60 FPS
20 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Pro W6800221 FPSGeForce 310M150 FPSPro W6800155 FPSGeForce 310M106 FPSPro W6800121 FPSGeForce 310M57 FPSPro W680060 FPSGeForce 310M20 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Pro W6800143 FPSGeForce 310M97 FPSPro W6800123 FPSGeForce 310M84 FPSPro W680088 FPSGeForce 310M41 FPSPro W680040 FPSGeForce 310M14 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Pro W6800180 FPSGeForce 310M122 FPSPro W6800117 FPSGeForce 310M79 FPSPro W6800109 FPSGeForce 310M51 FPSPro W680088 FPSGeForce 310M30 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyPro W6800117 FPSGeForce 310M79 FPSPro W680097 FPSGeForce 310M66 FPSPro W680078 FPSGeForce 310M37 FPSPro W680041 FPSGeForce 310M14 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100543057%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100643072%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100673465%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 1001004380%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1007210033%
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 / 100753670%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100723569%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100673465%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100793772%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100683467%
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
DirectX12.210.1
Vulkan1.4Not supported
OpenGL4.63.3
UpscalingFSRNot supported
Compute APIOpenCL 2.1OpenCL 1.1, CUDA 1.2
Architecture and release
ArchitectureRDNA 2.0Tesla
Process node7 nmBetter40 nm
Release date20212010
Device classProfMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor count26800 millionBetter260 million
Die size520 mm²57 mm²Better
Shader units / cores3840Better16
Base clock2075 MHzBetter606 MHz
Boost clock2320 MHzBetter606 MHz
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 4x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mmOEM dependent
ThicknessDual-slotIGP
Recommended PSU600 WOEM dependent
Power connector6+8 pinNone
Display outputs and limits
HDMIHDMI 2.1OEM dependent
DisplayPortDisplayPort 1.4aOEM dependent
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitors6OEM dependent
Max resolution7680 × 4320Depends on host system
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM32 GB GDDR6Better1 GB DDR3
Memory typeGDDR6GDDR3 / DDR3
Memory bus256 bitBetter64 bit
TFLOPS17.83Better0.049
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 / 69
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 (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: Pro W6800 or GeForce 310M?+
Pro W6800 has the higher overall gaming score, while GeForce 310M 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?+
Pro W6800 offers more overall performance, while Pro W6800 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?+
GeForce 310M is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Pro W6800 leads in combined 1440p performance. Pro W6800 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Pro W6800 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 Pro W6800 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.