Radeon RX 5700 XT vs NVS 300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 300 with Radeon RX 5700 XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 300
2011, $109
512 MB DDR3, 18 Watt
0.28
RX 5700 XT
2019, $399
8 GB GDDR6, 225 Watt
38.31
+13582%

5700 XT outperforms NVS 300 by a whopping 13582% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1423139
Place by popularitynot in top-10048
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0132.16
Power efficiency1.2113.27
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameGT218Navi 10
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 January 2011 (15 years ago)7 July 2019 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $399

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

RX 5700 XT has 321500% 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 cores162560
Core clock speed520 MHz1605 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1905 MHz
Number of transistors260 million10,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate4.160304.8
Floating-point processing power0.03936 TFLOPS9.754 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8160
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 mm272 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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
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 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+
Multi Monitorno data+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A+
CUDA1.2-

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
RX 5700 XT 38.31
+13582%

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
RX 5700 XT 16026
+13481%
Samples: 18436

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 HD0−1125
1440p0−176
4K-0−147

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.19
1440pno data5.25
4Kno data8.49

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 175 175
Counter-Strike 2 347 347
Cyberpunk 2077 78 78

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 133 133
Battlefield 5 119 119
Counter-Strike 2 308 308
Cyberpunk 2077 78 78
Far Cry 5 138 138
Fortnite 223 223
Forza Horizon 4 155 155
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 177 177
Valorant 313 313

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 78 78
Battlefield 5 110 110
Counter-Strike 2 177 177
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 75 75
Dota 2 92 92
Far Cry 5 130 130
Far Cry 6 131 131
Fortnite 179 179
Forza Horizon 4 154 154
Grand Theft Auto V 145 145
Metro Exodus 97 97
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 166 166
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 154 154
Valorant 294 294

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 105 105
Cyberpunk 2077 67 67
Dota 2 103 103
Far Cry 5 111 111
Forza Horizon 4 148 148
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 139 139
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 93 93
Valorant 159 159

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 143 143

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 105 105
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Far Cry 6 76 76
Grand Theft Auto V 79 79
Metro Exodus 57 57
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 286 286

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 89 89
Cyberpunk 2077 40 40
Far Cry 5 97 97
Forza Horizon 4 119 119
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 70−75 70−75

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 93 93

4K
High

Atomic Heart 30−35 30−35
Counter-Strike 2 28 28
Far Cry 6 26 26
Grand Theft Auto V 79 79
Metro Exodus 35 35
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54 54
Valorant 242 242

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60 60
Counter-Strike 2 45−50 45−50
Cyberpunk 2077 17 17
Dota 2 93 93
Far Cry 5 53 53
Forza Horizon 4 79 79
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 53 53

4K
Epic

Fortnite 45 45

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.28 38.31
Recency 8 January 2011 7 July 2019
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 225 Watt

NVS 300 has 92% lower power consumption.

RX 5700 XT, on the other hand, has a 13582% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 83% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 5700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 300 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 5700 XT 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
4.4 10349 votes

Rate Radeon RX 5700 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 300 or Radeon RX 5700 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.