NVS 5100M vs GeForce G210M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce G210M with NVS 5100M, including specs and performance data.
5100M outperforms G210M by an impressive 55% 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 | 1377 | 1297 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.70 | 1.05 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (16 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 years ago) |
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 | 16 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 625 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.000 | 8.800 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.048 TFLOPS | 0.1162 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 72 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 16 |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 64 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 support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 500 (DDR2), Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| 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 | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMISingle Link DVIVGA | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.2 |
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.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 16
−50%
| 24−27
+50%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−33.3%
|
12−14
+33.3%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−53.8%
|
40−45
+53.8%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−50%
|
21−24
+50%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
This is how GeForce G210M and NVS 5100M compete in popular games:
- NVS 5100M is 50% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.31 | 0.48 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 7 January 2010 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 35 Watt |
GeForce G210M has 150% lower power consumption.
NVS 5100M, on the other hand, has a 54.8% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 6 months.
The NVS 5100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce G210M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce G210M is a notebook graphics card while NVS 5100M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
