GeForce 205 vs Radeon HD 6310

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

GeForce 205 vs Radeon HD 6310 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce 205 vs Radeon HD 6310: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce 205

2019

Why buy it

✅Radeon HD 6310 is already obsolete for modern gaming, so GeForce 205 is the less risky modern option long term.
✅Draws 10W instead of 186W, a 176W reduction.
✅More future proof: Pascal (2016−2021) on 14nm with a newer platform for upcoming games.

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than Radeon HD 6310 across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌2019 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM already sits in legacy territory for modern games.

Radeon HD 6310

2011

Why buy it

✅4.9% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.

Trade-offs

❌2011 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌1760% higher power demand at 186W vs 10W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Radeon HD 6310 is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 4.9% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward GeForce 205 instead at 126 vs 122, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce 205 is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: a 14nm process instead of 40nm and a newer 2019 generation instead of 2011. That makes it the less risky pick as game demands keep moving.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

GeForce 205 makes the most sense to buy today. It is priced the same on MSRP at $50 vs $50, and it leads G3D-per-dollar by 3.3% (2.5 vs 2.4), which is enough to swing the recommendation its way. Radeon HD 6310 still makes more sense if max raw gaming performance matters more than value.

GeForce 205 vs Radeon HD 6310 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce 205

The GeForce 205 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 126 points.

Radeon HD 6310

The Radeon HD 6310 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in December 1 2011. It features the TeraScale 3 architecture. The core clock speed is 750 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 186W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 122 points. Launch price was $180.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce 205 scores 126 and the Radeon HD 6310 reaches 122 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 205 is built on Pascal while the Radeon HD 6310 uses TeraScale 3, both on 14 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 205) vs 1,280 (Radeon HD 6310). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 205) vs 1.92 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 6310).

Feature	GeForce 205	Radeon HD 6310
G3D Mark Score	126+3%	122
Architecture	Pascal	TeraScale 3
Process Node	14 nm	40 nm
Shading Units	384	1280+233%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.7972 TFLOPS	1.92 TFLOPS+141%
ROPs	16	32+100%
TMUs	24	80+233%
L1 Cache	144 KB	320 KB+122%
L2 Cache	512 KB	512 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce 205 gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon HD 6310 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce 205	Radeon HD 6310
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

Both cards ship with 512 MB of GDDR5. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce 205 and 128-bit on the Radeon HD 6310.

Feature	GeForce 205	Radeon HD 6310
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	512 KB	512 KB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 205 draws 10W versus the Radeon HD 6310's 186W — a 179.6% difference. The GeForce 205 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 205) vs 350W (Radeon HD 6310). Power connectors: Legacy vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	GeForce 205	Radeon HD 6310
TDP	10W-95%	186W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	1x 6-pin
Length	168mm	—
Height	69mm	—
Slots	1	—
Temp (Load)	75	—
Perf/Watt	12.6+1700%	0.7

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the GeForce 205 came in at $50, while the Radeon HD 6310 launched at $50. Performance per dollar on MSRP (G3D Mark / MSRP): 2.5 (GeForce 205) vs 2.4 (Radeon HD 6310) — the GeForce 205 offers 4.2% better value. The newer card here is GeForce 205 (2019 vs 2011).

Feature	GeForce 205	Radeon HD 6310
MSRP	$50	$50
Performance per Dollar	2.5+4%	2.4
Codename	GP108B	Cayman
Release	February 20 2019	December 1 2011
Ranking	#643	#598

Search GeForce 205 on Amazon

Search Radeon HD 6310 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.