NVS 310 vs Radeon HD 7400G
NVS 310
Popular choices:
Radeon HD 7400G
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 NVS 310 is positioned at rank 305 and the Radeon HD 7400G is on rank 219, so the Radeon HD 7400G offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar NVS 310
Performance Per Dollar Radeon HD 7400G
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The Radeon HD 7400G is significantly newer (2025 vs 2015). The Radeon HD 7400G likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The NVS 310 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The NVS 310 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon HD 7400G.
| Insight | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+3%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) (6nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The NVS 310 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $10 versus $15 for the Radeon HD 7400G, it costs 33% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 54.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+54.5%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($10) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($15) |
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 NVS 310 and Radeon HD 7400G
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.
Radeon HD 7400G
The Radeon HD 7400G is manufactured by AMD. It was released in August 8 2025. It features the RDNA 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1452 MHz to 2300 MHz. It has 1792 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 43W. Manufactured using 6 nm process technology. It features 28 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 267 points.
Graphics Performance
The NVS 310 scores 275 and the Radeon HD 7400G reaches 267 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The NVS 310 is built on Maxwell while the Radeon HD 7400G uses RDNA 3.0, both on 28 nm vs 6 nm. Shader units: 512 (NVS 310) vs 1,792 (Radeon HD 7400G). Raw compute: 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 310) vs 16.49 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 7400G). Boost clocks: 1033 MHz vs 2300 MHz.
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 275+3% | 267 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | RDNA 3.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 6 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 ×2 | 1792+250% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 | 16.49 TFLOPS+1459% |
| Boost Clock | 1033 MHz | 2300 MHz+123% |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 64+300% |
| TMUs | 32 ×2 | 112+250% |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (NVS 310) vs 2 MB (Radeon HD 7400G) — the Radeon HD 7400G has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB | 2 MB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (NVS 310) vs 11.2 (11_0) (Radeon HD 7400G). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0)+7% | 11.2 (11_0) |
| OpenGL | 4.6+5% | 4.4 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Fermi NVENC (NVS 310) vs None (Radeon HD 7400G). Decoder: VP4 vs UVD 3.0. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (NVS 310) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,MVC (Radeon HD 7400G).
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Fermi NVENC | None |
| Decoder | VP4 | UVD 3.0 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4,MVC |
Power & Dimensions
The NVS 310 draws 68W versus the Radeon HD 7400G's 43W — a 45% difference. The Radeon HD 7400G is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (NVS 310) vs 350W (Radeon HD 7400G). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin. Card length: 145mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75.
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 68W | 43W-37% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | 1x 6-pin |
| Length | 145mm | 0mm |
| Height | 69mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 4.0 | 6.2+55% |
Value Analysis
The NVS 310 launched at $159 MSRP and currently averages $10, while the Radeon HD 7400G launched at $50 and now averages $15. The NVS 310 costs 33.3% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 27.5 (NVS 310) vs 17.8 (Radeon HD 7400G) — the NVS 310 offers 54.5% better value. The Radeon HD 7400G is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2015).
| Feature | NVS 310 | Radeon HD 7400G |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159 | $50-69% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10-33% | $15 |
| Performance per Dollar | 27.5+54% | 17.8 |
| Codename | GM107 | Navi 33 |
| Release | November 4 2015 | August 8 2025 |
| Ranking | #826 | #229 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on NVS 310 and Radeon HD 7400G
