GeForce Go 7900 GTX vs NVS 310

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 Go 7900 GTX vs NVS 310 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 Go 7900 GTX vs NVS 310: 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 Go 7900 GTX

2015

Why buy it

✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.

Trade-offs

❌Less VRAM, with 256 MB vs 512 MB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2015 hardware with 256 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 1.7 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $159 MSRP).
❌267.6% higher power demand at 250W vs 68W.

NVS 310

2015

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 1.7 vs 0 G3D/$ ($159 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (512 MB vs 256 MB).
✅Draws 68W instead of 250W, a 182W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌2015 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

NVS 310 is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 1.9% in PassMark G3D (275 vs 270), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.

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

GeForce Go 7900 GTX is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond because it comes out ahead on the available hardware-headroom signals for this matchup.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

NVS 310 makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, NVS 310 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce Go 7900 GTX has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce Go 7900 GTX vs NVS 310 Technical Specifications

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

GeForce Go 7900 GTX

The GeForce Go 7900 GTX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 2 2015. It features the Maxwell 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1075 MHz. It has 2816 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 250W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 270 points. Launch price was $649.

NVS 310

The NVS 310 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 275 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce Go 7900 GTX scores 270 and the NVS 310 reaches 275 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce Go 7900 GTX is built on Maxwell 2.0 while the NVS 310 uses Maxwell, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 2,816 (GeForce Go 7900 GTX) vs 512 (NVS 310). Raw compute: 6.06 TFLOPS (GeForce Go 7900 GTX) vs 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 310). Boost clocks: 1075 MHz vs 1033 MHz.

Feature	GeForce Go 7900 GTX	NVS 310
G3D Mark Score	270	275+2%
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0	Maxwell
Process Node	28 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	2816+450%	512 ×2
Compute (TFLOPS)	6.06 TFLOPS+473%	1.058 TFLOPS ×2
Boost Clock	1075 MHz+4%	1033 MHz
ROPs	96+500%	16 ×2
TMUs	176+450%	32 ×2
L1 Cache	1 MB+300%	0.25 MB
L2 Cache	3 MB+200%	1 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce Go 7900 GTX gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The NVS 310 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce Go 7900 GTX	NVS 310
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce Go 7900 GTX has 256 MB of VRAM, while the NVS 310 carries 512 MB. NVS 310 gives you 100% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce Go 7900 GTX and 64-bit on the NVS 310. L2 Cache: 3 MB (GeForce Go 7900 GTX) vs 1 MB (NVS 310) — the GeForce Go 7900 GTX has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce Go 7900 GTX	NVS 310
VRAM Capacity	0.25 GB	0.5 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	3 MB+200%	1 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 9.0c (GeForce Go 7900 GTX) vs 12 (11_0) (NVS 310). OpenGL: 2.1 vs 4.6. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce Go 7900 GTX	NVS 310
DirectX	9.0c	12 (11_0)+33%
OpenGL	2.1	4.6+119%
Max Displays	2	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: No (GeForce Go 7900 GTX) vs Fermi NVENC (NVS 310). Decoder: PureVideo vs VP4. Supported codecs: MPEG-2,WMV9,H.264 (GeForce Go 7900 GTX) vs H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (NVS 310).

Feature	GeForce Go 7900 GTX	NVS 310
Encoder	No	Fermi NVENC
Decoder	PureVideo	VP4
Codecs	MPEG-2,WMV9,H.264	H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce Go 7900 GTX draws 250W versus the NVS 310's 68W — a 114.5% difference. The NVS 310 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce Go 7900 GTX) vs 350W (NVS 310). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 145mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 85°C vs 75°C.

Feature	GeForce Go 7900 GTX	NVS 310
TDP	250W	68W-73%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	0mm	145mm
Height	0mm	69mm
Slots	0-100%	1
Temp (Load)	85°C	75°C-12%
Perf/Watt	1.1	4.0+264%