GeForce 310M vs GeForce Go 7600
GeForce 310M
Popular choices:
GeForce Go 7600
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
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.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce 310M is positioned at rank 613 and the GeForce Go 7600 is on rank 76, so the GeForce Go 7600 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 310M
Performance Per Dollar GeForce Go 7600
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce Go 7600 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.8% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 310M.
| Insight | GeForce 310M | GeForce Go 7600 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce Go 7600 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 310M and GeForce Go 7600
GeForce 310M
The GeForce 310M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 549 MHz to 549 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 127 points.
GeForce Go 7600
The GeForce Go 7600 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 25 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock ranges from 980 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 1152 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 170W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 128 points. Launch price was $249.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 310M scores 127 and the GeForce Go 7600 reaches 128 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 310M is built on Maxwell while the GeForce Go 7600 uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 310M) vs 1,152 (GeForce Go 7600). Raw compute: 0.4216 TFLOPS (GeForce 310M) vs 2.378 TFLOPS (GeForce Go 7600). Boost clocks: 549 MHz vs 1033 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 310M | GeForce Go 7600 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 127 | 128 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 1152+200% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4216 TFLOPS | 2.378 TFLOPS+464% |
| Boost Clock | 549 MHz | 1033 MHz+88% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 96+300% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB+100% | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 310M | GeForce Go 7600 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 310M) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce Go 7600) — the GeForce 310M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 310M | GeForce Go 7600 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce 310M) vs 9.0c (GeForce Go 7600). OpenGL: 3.3 vs 2.1. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 310M | GeForce Go 7600 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1+12% | 9.0c |
| OpenGL | 3.3+57% | 2.1 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 310M) vs No (GeForce Go 7600). Decoder: PureVideo VP4 vs PureVideo. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (GeForce 310M) vs MPEG-2,WMV9,H.264 (GeForce Go 7600).
| Feature | GeForce 310M | GeForce Go 7600 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | No |
| Decoder | PureVideo VP4 | PureVideo |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 | MPEG-2,WMV9,H.264 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 310M draws 33W versus the GeForce Go 7600's 170W — a 135% difference. The GeForce 310M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 310M) vs 350W (GeForce Go 7600). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 85°C.
| Feature | GeForce 310M | GeForce Go 7600 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-81% | 170W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | — | 0mm |
| Height | — | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C-6% | 85°C |
| Perf/Watt | 3.8+375% | 0.8 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 310M and GeForce Go 7600
