Quadro NVS 420 vs FirePro W2100

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro W2100 and Quadro NVS 420, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FirePro W2100
2014
2 GB DDR3, 26 Watt
2.04
+558%

W2100 outperforms 420 by a whopping 558% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9061357
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.01
Power efficiency6.320.62
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameOlandG98
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date12 August 2014 (11 years ago)20 January 2009 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$131.43

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores3208 ×2
Core clock speed630 MHz550 MHz
Boost clock speed680 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)26 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate13.604.400 ×2
Floating-point processing power0.4352 TFLOPS0.0224 TFLOPS ×2
ROPs84 ×2
TMUs208 ×2
L1 Cache80 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KB16 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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16
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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB256 MB ×2
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit ×2
Memory clock speed900 MHz700 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.8 GB/s11.2 GB/s ×2
Shared memory--

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 Connectors2x DisplayPortNo outputs
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 and SDK support

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 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.

FirePro W2100 2.04
+558%
NVS 420 0.31

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
+559%
Samples: 239
NVS 420 137
Samples: 44

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 HD12
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
4K2-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data131.43

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 5−6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 5−6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Fortnite 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Valorant 40−45
+583%
6−7
−583%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 40−45
+633%
6−7
−633%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Fortnite 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Forza Horizon 5 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Valorant 40−45
+583%
6−7
−583%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 21−24
+667%
3−4
−667%
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Hogwarts Legacy 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
Valorant 40−45
+583%
6−7
−583%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+700%
2−3
−700%
Grand Theft Auto V 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Valorant 16−18
+750%
2−3
−750%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4 0−1

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 4−5 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+650%
2−3
−650%
Valorant 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

This is how FirePro W2100 and NVS 420 compete in popular games:

  • FirePro W2100 is 1100% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.04 0.31
Recency 12 August 2014 20 January 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 26 Watt 40 Watt

FirePro W2100 has a 558.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 53.8% lower power consumption.

The FirePro W2100 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 420 in performance tests.

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 420
Quadro NVS 420

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 99 votes

Rate FirePro W2100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 9 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 420 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro W2100 or Quadro NVS 420, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.