GeForce Go 7600 vs GeForce 310M
GeForce Go 7600
Popular choices:
GeForce 310M
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 Go 7600 is positioned at rank 76 and the GeForce 310M is on rank 613, 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 Go 7600
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 310M
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 Go 7600 | GeForce 310M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.8%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| 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 Go 7600 and GeForce 310M
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce Go 7600 scores 128 and the GeForce 310M reaches 127 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce Go 7600 is built on Kepler while the GeForce 310M uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 1,152 (GeForce Go 7600) vs 384 (GeForce 310M). Raw compute: 2.378 TFLOPS (GeForce Go 7600) vs 0.4216 TFLOPS (GeForce 310M). Boost clocks: 1033 MHz vs 549 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce Go 7600 | GeForce 310M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 128 | 127 |
| Architecture | Kepler | Maxwell |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 1152+200% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 2.378 TFLOPS+464% | 0.4216 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1033 MHz+88% | 549 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+300% | 8 |
| TMUs | 96+300% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 192 KB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce Go 7600 | GeForce 310M |
|---|---|---|
| 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: 0.5 MB (GeForce Go 7600) vs 1 MB (GeForce 310M) — the GeForce 310M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce Go 7600 | GeForce 310M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 1 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 9.0c (GeForce Go 7600) vs 10.1 (GeForce 310M). OpenGL: 2.1 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce Go 7600 | GeForce 310M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 9.0c | 10.1+12% |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3+57% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce Go 7600) vs None (GeForce 310M). Decoder: PureVideo vs PureVideo VP4. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,WMV9,H.264 (GeForce Go 7600) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (GeForce 310M).
| Feature | GeForce Go 7600 | GeForce 310M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo | PureVideo VP4 |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,WMV9,H.264 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce Go 7600 draws 170W versus the GeForce 310M's 33W — a 135% difference. The GeForce 310M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce Go 7600) vs 350W (GeForce 310M). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 80°C.
| Feature | GeForce Go 7600 | GeForce 310M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 170W | 33W-81% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 0mm | — |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 85°C | 80°C-6% |
| Perf/Watt | 0.8 | 3.8+375% |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce Go 7600 and GeForce 310M
