Quadro NVS 110M vs GeForce GTX 980 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Mobile with Quadro NVS 110M, including specs and performance data.
980 Mobile outperforms 110M by a whopping 17709% 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 | 310 | 1503 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 7.26 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.52 | 0.84 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | GM204 | G72 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 21 September 2015 (10 years ago) | 1 June 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $395.82 | 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 | 2048 | 7 |
| Core clock speed | 1064 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1216 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,200 million | 112 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100-200 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 136.2 | 1.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.358 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 64 | 2 |
| TMUs | 128 | 4 |
| L1 Cache | 768 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224 GB/s | 4.8 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 DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| VGA аnalog display support | + | no data |
| DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
| H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
| BatteryBoost | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
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 | 99 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 46 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 4.00 | no data |
| 4K | 8.60 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+2600%
|
3−4
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+986%
|
7−8
−986%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+517%
|
24−27
−517%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 110−120 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 230−240
+2260%
|
10−11
−2260%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+1288%
|
8−9
−1288%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+2600%
|
3−4
−2600%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 84 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+986%
|
7−8
−986%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 84
+2000%
|
4−5
−2000%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+517%
|
24−27
−517%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+1288%
|
8−9
−1288%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80−85
+2600%
|
3−4
−2600%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 35−40
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 75−80
+986%
|
7−8
−986%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 44
+1000%
|
4−5
−1000%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+517%
|
24−27
−517%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 100−110 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40−45
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 140−150 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+17100%
|
1−2
−17100%
|
| Valorant | 180−190
+18200%
|
1−2
−18200%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 45−50 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 45−50 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 60
+329%
|
14−16
−329%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 110−120
+11300%
|
1−2
−11300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 980 Mobile is 17100% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 980 Mobile surpassed NVS 110M in all 26 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 19.59 | 0.11 |
| Recency | 21 September 2015 | 1 June 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | 10 Watt |
GTX 980 Mobile has a 17709.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 110M, on the other hand, has 900% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 110M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 110M 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.
