Quadro NVS 140M vs GeForce GTX 285M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 285M SLI with Quadro NVS 140M, including specs and performance data.
285M SLI outperforms 140M by a whopping 1905% 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 | 751 | 1459 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.95 | 1.46 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N10E-GTX | G86 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 2 March 2009 (16 years ago) | 9 May 2007 (18 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 | 256 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1508 Million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 3.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0256 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 16 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | 2 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1020 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 9.6 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 | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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 | 60
+900%
| 6
−900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 65−70
+475%
|
12−14
−475%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+289%
|
9−10
−289%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+129%
|
7−8
−129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+3900%
|
1−2
−3900%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how GTX 285M SLI and NVS 140M compete in popular games:
- GTX 285M SLI is 900% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 285M SLI is 1800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 285M SLI surpassed NVS 140M in all 27 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.81 | 0.19 |
| Recency | 2 March 2009 | 9 May 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 10 Watt |
GTX 285M SLI has a 1905.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 140M, on the other hand, has 1400% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 285M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 140M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 285M SLI is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 140M 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.
