NVS 3100M vs FirePro W600

Place in performance ranking	637	1187
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.56	no data
Architecture	GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	Cape Verde	N10M-NS
Market segment	Workstation	Mobile workstation
Release date	13 June 2012 (12 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	no data
Current price	$358 (0.6x MSRP)	$269

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FirePro W600 and NVS 3100M have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	512	16
Core clock speed	750 MHz	600 MHz
Number of transistors	1,500 million	260 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	14 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.00	4.848
Floating-point performance	768.0 gflops	46.98 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on FirePro W600 and NVS 3100M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	163 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	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	GDDR3, DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	4000 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	64 GB/s	12.64 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 Connectors

6x mini-DisplayPort

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	5.1	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	no data	1.2

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 W600 4.33
+717%

NVS 3100M 0.53

FirePro W600 outperforms NVS 3100M by 717% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

FirePro W600 1671
+719%

NVS 3100M 204

FirePro W600 outperforms NVS 3100M by 719% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

24−27

+700%

3−4
−700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Hitman 3	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +673%	10−12 −673%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +686%	7−8 −686%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +678%	9−10 −678%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Hitman 3	16−18 +700%	2−3 −700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +673%	10−12 −673%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +686%	7−8 −686%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +678%	9−10 −678%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Cyberpunk 2077	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	85−90 +673%	10−12 −673%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60 +686%	7−8 −686%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%
Watch Dogs: Legion	70−75 +678%	9−10 −678%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%
Cyberpunk 2077	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Far Cry 5	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Hitman 3	45−50 +650%	6−7 −650%
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27 +700%	3−4 −700%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

24−27

+700%

3−4
−700%

4K
High Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn

8−9
+700%

1−2

−700%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Metro Exodus	30−33 +650%	4−5 −650%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+700%

2−3
−700%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.33	0.53
Recency	13 June 2012	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	75 Watt	14 Watt