Quadro NVS 210S vs FirePro W5000
Aggregate performance score
We've compared FirePro W5000 and Quadro NVS 210S, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
W5000 outperforms 210S by a whopping 14080% 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 | 592 | 1546 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.63 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.28 | 0.35 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Pitcairn | C51 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 7 August 2012 (13 years ago) | 22 December 2003 (22 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $599 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 cores | 768 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 825 MHz | 425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 75 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 11 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 39.60 | 0.85 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.267 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | 1 |
| TMUs | 48 | 2 |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no data |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCI |
| Length | 183 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | IGP |
| Form factor | full height / half length | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 102.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| DisplayPort count | 2 | no data |
| Dual-link DVI support | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.09 | 0.05 |
| Recency | 7 August 2012 | 22 December 2003 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 11 Watt |
FirePro W5000 has a 14080% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 221% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 210S, on the other hand, has 582% lower power consumption.
The FirePro W5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 210S in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
