GeForce RTX 3070 vs NVS 300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 300 with GeForce RTX 3070, including specs and performance data.

NVS 300
2011, $109
512 MB DDR3, 18 Watt
0.28

RTX 3070 outperforms NVS 300 by a whopping 18832% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking141862
Place by popularitynot in top-10032
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0145.19
Power efficiency1.2018.64
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGT218GA104
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 January 2011 (15 years ago)1 September 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

RTX 3070 has 451800% better value for money than NVS 300.

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 cores165888
Core clock speed520 MHz1500 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1725 MHz
Number of transistors260 million17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt220 Watt
Texture fill rate4.160317.4
Floating-point processing power0.03936 TFLOPS20.31 TFLOPS
ROPs496
TMUs8184
Tensor Coresno data184
Ray Tracing Coresno data46
L1 Cacheno data5.8 MB
L2 Cache32 KB4 MB

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length145 mm242 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 12-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s448.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors1x DMS-591x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA1.28.5
DLSS-+

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.

NVS 300 0.28
RTX 3070 53.01
+18832%

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.

NVS 300 118
Samples: 355
RTX 3070 22084
+18615%
Samples: 38412

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD0−1149
1440p0−199
4K-0−163

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.35
1440pno data5.04
4Kno data7.92

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 147
+0%
147
+0%
Palworld 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 198
+0%
198
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 149
+0%
149
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 330
+0%
330
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 139
+0%
139
+0%
Far Cry 5 154
+0%
154
+0%
Fortnite 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Palworld 174
+0%
174
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 132
+0%
132
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 257
+0%
257
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 126
+0%
126
+0%
Dota 2 133
+0%
133
+0%
Far Cry 5 148
+0%
148
+0%
Fortnite 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 139
+0%
139
+0%
Metro Exodus 120
+0%
120
+0%
Palworld 139
+0%
139
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 230
+0%
230
+0%
Valorant 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 119
+0%
119
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 102
+0%
102
+0%
Dota 2 125
+0%
125
+0%
Far Cry 5 141
+0%
141
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 121
+0%
121
+0%
Valorant 237
+0%
237
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Palworld 125
+0%
125
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 167
+0%
167
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 98
+0%
98
+0%
Metro Exodus 75
+0%
75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 103
+0%
103
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 62
+0%
62
+0%
Far Cry 5 125
+0%
125
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Palworld 91
+0%
91
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 43
+0%
43
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 117
+0%
117
+0%
Metro Exodus 49
+0%
49
+0%
Palworld 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 90
+0%
90
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 70
+0%
70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Dota 2 125
+0%
125
+0%
Far Cry 5 70
+0%
70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Palworld 52
+0%
52
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 65 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.28 53.01
Recency 8 January 2011 1 September 2020
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 220 Watt

NVS 300 has 1122% lower power consumption.

RTX 3070, on the other hand, has a 18832% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3070 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 300 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3070 is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 52 votes

Rate NVS 300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 15211 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3070 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 300 or GeForce RTX 3070, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.