Radeon RX 7900 XTX vs Quadro NVS 510M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 510M with Radeon RX 7900 XTX, including specs and performance data.

NVS 510M
2006
256 MB GDDR3, 35 Watt
0.57
RX 7900 XTX
2022, $999
24 GB GDDR6, 355 Watt
75.23
+13098%

7900 XTX outperforms 510M by a whopping 13098% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking129514
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data41.38
Power efficiency1.2716.51
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026)
GPU code nameG71Navi 31
Market segmentMobile workstationDesktop
Release date21 August 2006 (20 years ago)3 November 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

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 coresno data6144
Core clock speed450 MHz1929 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2498 MHz
Number of transistors278 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt355 Watt
Texture fill rate10.80959.2
Floating-point processing powerno data61.39 TFLOPS
ROPs16192
TMUs24384
Ray Tracing Coresno data96
L0 Cacheno data3 MB
L1 Cacheno data3 MB
L2 Cacheno data6 MB
L3 Cacheno data96 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 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data287 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB24 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed600 MHz2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth19.2 GB/s960.0 GB/s
Shared memory--
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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.8
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A2.2
VulkanN/A1.3

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 510M 0.57
RX 7900 XTX 75.23
+13098%

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 510M 238
Samples: 3
RX 7900 XTX 31473
+13124%
Samples: 11754

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 HD1−2233
+23200%
1440p1−2153
+15200%
4K0−196

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.29
1440pno data6.53
4Kno data10.41

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Atomic Heart 359 359
Counter-Strike 2 355 355
Cyberpunk 2077 250 250

Full HD
Medium

Atomic Heart 290 290
Battlefield 5 190−200 190−200
Counter-Strike 2 348 348
Cyberpunk 2077 240 240
Far Cry 5 212 212
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 338 338
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 450−500 450−500

Full HD
High

Atomic Heart 199 199
Battlefield 5 190−200 190−200
Counter-Strike 2 339 339
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280 270−280
Cyberpunk 2077 217 217
Dota 2 197 197
Far Cry 5 205 205
Far Cry 6 207 207
Fortnite 300−350 300−350
Forza Horizon 4 330 330
Grand Theft Auto V 175 175
Metro Exodus 239 239
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 545 545
Valorant 450−500 450−500

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 190−200 190−200
Cyberpunk 2077 207 207
Dota 2 178 178
Far Cry 5 189 189
Forza Horizon 4 295 295
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 298 298
Valorant 450−500 450−500

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 300−350 300−350

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 267 267
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550 500−550
Far Cry 6 187 187
Grand Theft Auto V 165 165
Metro Exodus 161 161
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 170−180
Valorant 450−500 450−500

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 190−200 190−200
Cyberpunk 2077 146 146
Far Cry 5 187 187
Forza Horizon 4 290 290
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 238 238

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160 150−160

4K
High

Atomic Heart 75−80 75−80
Counter-Strike 2 67 67
Far Cry 6 129 129
Grand Theft Auto V 186 186
Metro Exodus 108 108
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 197 197
Valorant 300−350 300−350

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140 130−140
Counter-Strike 2 43 43
Cyberpunk 2077 73 73
Dota 2 159 159
Far Cry 5 159 159
Forza Horizon 4 227 227
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 95−100

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80 75−80

This is how NVS 510M and RX 7900 XTX compete in popular games:

  • RX 7900 XTX is 23200% faster in 1080p
  • RX 7900 XTX is 15200% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.57 75.23
Recency 21 August 2006 3 November 2022
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 24 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 355 Watt

NVS 510M has 90% lower power consumption.

RX 7900 XTX, on the other hand, has a 13098% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 16 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 94% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 510M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 510M is a mobile workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 7900 XTX 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.


3.7 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 510M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 5294 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7900 XTX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 510M or Radeon RX 7900 XTX, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.