Quadro NVS 140M vs GeForce GTX 980 Mobile

Place in the ranking	258	1396
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	19.88	no data
Power efficiency	7.44	1.38
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GM204	G86
Market segment	Laptop	Mobile workstation
Release date	21 September 2015 (9 years ago)	9 May 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$395.82	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	16
Core clock speed	1064 MHz	400 MHz
Boost clock speed	1216 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,200 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100-200 Watt	10 Watt
Texture fill rate	136.2	3.200
Floating-point processing power	4.358 TFLOPS	0.0256 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	4
TMUs	128	8

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 2.0 x16
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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	7.0 GB/s	600 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224 GB/s	9.6 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	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 compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	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	97 +1517%	6 −1517%
4K	48	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.08	no data
4K	8.25	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +2050%	2−3 −2050%
Elden Ring	70−75	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +2050%	2−3 −2050%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1740%	5−6 −1740%
Metro Exodus	55−60	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +1125%	4−5 −1125%
Valorant	85−90	0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +2050%	2−3 −2050%
Dota 2	56	0−1
Elden Ring	70−75	0−1
Far Cry 5	70−75 +1067%	6−7 −1067%
Fortnite	110−120 +11100%	1−2 −11100%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1740%	5−6 −1740%
Grand Theft Auto V	84	0−1
Metro Exodus	55−60	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +2740%	5−6 −2740%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +1125%	4−5 −1125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	81 +1925%	4−5 −1925%
Valorant	85−90	0−1
World of Tanks	240−250 +2091%	10−12 −2091%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	65−70	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +550%	6−7 −550%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +2050%	2−3 −2050%
Dota 2	75−80	0−1
Far Cry 5	70−75 +1067%	6−7 −1067%
Forza Horizon 4	90−95 +1740%	5−6 −1740%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	140−150 +2740%	5−6 −2740%
Valorant	85−90	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	35−40	0−1
Elden Ring	35−40	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	35−40	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +17200%	1−2 −17200%
Red Dead Redemption 2	20−22	0−1
World of Tanks	140−150 +14400%	1−2 −14400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	40−45	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry 5	60−65 +1400%	4−5 −1400%
Forza Horizon 4	55−60	0−1
Metro Exodus	45−50	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35 +675%	4−5 −675%
Valorant	55−60 +1325%	4−5 −1325%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	18−20	0−1
Dota 2	60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Elden Ring	16−18	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	60 +300%	14−16 −300%
Metro Exodus	16−18	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	65−70	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	14−16	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	60 +300%	14−16 −300%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	21−24	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	18−20	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Dota 2	35−40 +147%	14−16 −147%
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Fortnite	24−27	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35	0−1
Valorant	27−30	0−1

This is how GTX 980 Mobile and NVS 140M compete in popular games:

GTX 980 Mobile is 1517% faster in 1080p

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 17200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 980 Mobile is ahead in 29 tests (97%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	21.60	0.20
Recency	21 September 2015	9 May 2007
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	10 Watt

GTX 980 Mobile has a 10700% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 140M, on the other hand, has 900% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 140M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Mobile is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 140M 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.