Quadro NVS 290 vs FirePro W2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W2100 and Quadro NVS 290, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FirePro W2100
2014
2 GB DDR3, 26 Watt
2.35
+298%

W2100 outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 298% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8481205
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
Power efficiency6.221.93
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameOlandG86
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date12 August 2014 (10 years ago)4 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores32016
Core clock speed630 MHz459 MHz
Boost clock speed680 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)26 Watt21 Watt
Texture fill rate13.603.672
Floating-point processing power0.4352 TFLOPS0.02938 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs208

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 supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Form factorlow profile / half lengthno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s6.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display Connectors2x DisplayPort1x DMS-59
DisplayPort count2no data
Dual-link DVI support+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

FirePro W2100 2.35
+298%
NVS 290 0.59

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.

FirePro W2100 903
+296%
NVS 290 228

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 HD13
+333%
3−4
−333%
4K20−1

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data49.67

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Elden Ring 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Dota 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Elden Ring 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Fortnite 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
World of Tanks 40−45
+340%
10−11
−340%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+400%
2−3
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Dota 2 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+300%
3−4
−300%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%

1440p
High Preset

Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
World of Tanks 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+350%
2−3
−350%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1
Valorant 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Elden Ring 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
+400%
3−4
−400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Fortnite 1−2 0−1
Valorant 2−3 0−1

This is how FirePro W2100 and NVS 290 compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W2100 is 333% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.35 0.59
Recency 12 August 2014 4 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 26 Watt 21 Watt

FirePro W2100 has a 298.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 290, on the other hand, has 23.8% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro W2100
FirePro W2100
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290

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 94 votes

Rate FirePro W2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 22 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.