Quadro NVS 5100M vs GeForce 9800 GT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 9800 GT with Quadro NVS 5100M, including specs and performance data.
9800 GT outperforms NVS 5100M by a substantial 33% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1005 | 1086 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 0.04 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | G92 | N10P-NS |
| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 21 July 2008 (15 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $160 | no data |
| Current price | $154 (1x MSRP) | $105 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
NVS 5100M has 100% better value for money than 9800 GT.
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 | 112 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | 112 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 33.6 billion/sec | no data |
| Floating-point performance | 336.0 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce 9800 GT and Quadro NVS 5100M 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.
| Laptop size | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
| Length | 9" (22.9 cm) | no data |
| Height | 1-slot | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | + | 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | HDTVDual Link DVI | no data |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 10.1 |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | no data |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | no data |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 12−14
+20%
|
10−11
−20%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 0.93 |
| Recency | 21 July 2008 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 35 Watt |
The GeForce 9800 GT is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 5100M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 9800 GT is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 5100M is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
