
Radeon R5 310 vs FirePro RG220

Radeon R5 310
Popular choices:

FirePro RG220
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. The Radeon R5 310 is positioned at rank #424 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar Radeon R5 310
Performance Per Dollar
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro RG220 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.9% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon R5 310.
| Insight | Radeon R5 310 | FirePro RG220 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.9%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.9%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The Radeon R5 310 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the Radeon R5 310 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $20), it costs 25% less, resulting in a 32.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | Radeon R5 310 | FirePro RG220 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+32.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($15) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($20) |
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 Radeon R5 310 and FirePro RG220

Radeon R5 310
The Radeon R5 310 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 18 2017. It features the GCN 3.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 730 MHz to 1024 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 50W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 332 points.

FirePro RG220
The FirePro RG220 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in February 25 2013. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 825 MHz. It has 768 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 335 points. Launch price was $1,099.
Graphics Performance
The Radeon R5 310 scores 332 and the FirePro RG220 reaches 335 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.9% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The Radeon R5 310 is built on GCN 3.0 while the FirePro RG220 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (Radeon R5 310) vs 768 (FirePro RG220). Raw compute: 0.7864 TFLOPS (Radeon R5 310) vs 1.267 TFLOPS (FirePro RG220).
| Feature | Radeon R5 310 | FirePro RG220 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 332 | 335 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 768+100% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7864 TFLOPS | 1.267 TFLOPS+61% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 48+100% |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | 192 KB+100% |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 512 KB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon R5 310 | FirePro RG220 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 128 KB (Radeon R5 310) vs 512 KB (FirePro RG220) — the FirePro RG220 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon R5 310 | FirePro RG220 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 128 KB | 512 KB+300% |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon R5 310 draws 50W versus the FirePro RG220's 150W — a 100% difference. The Radeon R5 310 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon R5 310) vs 350W (FirePro RG220). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | Radeon R5 310 | FirePro RG220 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 50W-67% | 150W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | — | 170mm |
| Height | — | 111mm |
| Slots | — | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | Unknown |
| Perf/Watt | 6.6+200% | 2.2 |
Value Analysis
The Radeon R5 310 launched at $49 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the FirePro RG220 launched at $0 and now averages $20. The Radeon R5 310 costs 25% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 22.1 (Radeon R5 310) vs 16.8 (FirePro RG220) — the Radeon R5 310 offers 31.5% better value. The Radeon R5 310 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2013).
| Feature | Radeon R5 310 | FirePro RG220 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $49 | $0-100% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-25% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 22.1+32% | 16.8 |
| Codename | Weston | Pitcairn |
| Release | April 18 2017 | February 25 2013 |
| Ranking | #873 | #619 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















