NVS 510 vs Radeon HD 6790
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 6790 with NVS 510, including specs and performance data.
HD 6790 outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 135% 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 | 775 | 1012 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.73 | 0.04 |
| Power efficiency | 1.97 | 3.58 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
| GPU code name | Barts | GK107 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 April 2011 (15 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
HD 6790 has 1725% 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 | 800 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | 840 MHz | 797 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,700 million | 1,270 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 33.60 | 12.75 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.344 TFLOPS | 0.306 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | 16 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 198 mm | 160 mm |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
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 | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1050 MHz | 891 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 134.4 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
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 | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
| HDMI | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 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.
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:
| 900p | 52
+148%
| 21−24
−148%
|
| Full HD | 61
+154%
| 24−27
−154%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.44
+666%
| 18.71
−666%
|
- HD 6790 has 666% lower cost per frame in 1080p
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+156%
|
27−30
−156%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+150%
|
14−16
−150%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+152%
|
21−24
−152%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+142%
|
12−14
−142%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+167%
|
12−14
−167%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+138%
|
16−18
−138%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
This is how HD 6790 and NVS 510 compete in popular games:
- HD 6790 is 148% faster in 900p
- HD 6790 is 154% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.81 | 1.62 |
| Recency | 4 April 2011 | 23 October 2012 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 35 Watt |
HD 6790 has a 135% higher aggregate performance score.
NVS 510, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 43% more advanced lithography process, and 329% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 6790 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 6790 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.
