NVS 510 vs GeForce GTX 480
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 480 with NVS 510, including specs and performance data.
GTX 480 outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 504% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 505 | 1012 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.45 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 3.03 | 3.58 |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | GF100 | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 26 March 2010 (16 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $499 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
GTX 480 has 3525% better value for money than NVS 510.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 480 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,100 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 42.06 | 12.75 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.345 TFLOPS | 0.306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 48 | 16 |
| TMUs | 60 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 960 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 768 KB | 256 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 160 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1848 MHz (3696 data rate) | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 177.4 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | Two Dual Link DVI, Mini HDMI | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.2 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.1.126 |
| CUDA | + | 3.0 |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+529%
|
7−8
−529%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+556%
|
9−10
−556%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+514%
|
7−8
−514%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+529%
|
7−8
−529%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 50−55
+563%
|
8−9
−563%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150
+517%
|
24−27
−517%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+610%
|
10−11
−610%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Fortnite | 55−60
+556%
|
9−10
−556%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+514%
|
7−8
−514%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−33
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
| Metro Exodus | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 40−45
+529%
|
7−8
−529%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+610%
|
10−11
−610%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30−35
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 40−45
+514%
|
7−8
−514%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Valorant | 90−95
+557%
|
14−16
−557%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 55−60
+556%
|
9−10
−556%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+525%
|
12−14
−525%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| Metro Exodus | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 50−55
+538%
|
8−9
−538%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+506%
|
16−18
−506%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27
+525%
|
4−5
−525%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+529%
|
7−8
−529%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+620%
|
5−6
−620%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.79 | 1.62 |
| Recency | 26 March 2010 | 23 October 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1536 MB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 35 Watt |
GTX 480 has a 504% higher aggregate performance score.
NVS 510, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 33% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 614% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 480 is a desktop graphics card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
