NVS 510 vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5830

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 5830 with NVS 510, including specs and performance data.

ATI Mobility HD 5830
2010
1 GB GDDR3, 24 Watt
1.23

NVS 510 outperforms Mobility HD 5830 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1094997
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.04
Power efficiency3.953.56
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameBroadwayGK107
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date7 January 2010 (16 years ago)23 October 2012 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores800192
Core clock speed500 MHz797 MHz
Number of transistors1,040 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)24 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate20.0012.75
Floating-point processing power0.8 TFLOPS0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs4016
L1 Cache80 KB16 KB
L2 Cache256 KB256 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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data160 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s28.51 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x mini-DisplayPort

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.05.1
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCL1.21.2
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA-3.0

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

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Resident Evil 4 Remake 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Valorant 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
−20.7%
35−40
+20.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Metro Exodus 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Valorant 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
−31.3%
21−24
+31.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
−28.6%
9−10
+28.6%
Valorant 30−35
−21.2%
40−45
+21.2%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14
−23.1%
16−18
+23.1%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−28.6%
18−20
+28.6%
Valorant 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%

4K
Ultra

Dota 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.23 1.62
Recency 7 January 2010 23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 24 Watt 35 Watt

ATI Mobility HD 5830 has 46% lower power consumption.

NVS 510, on the other hand, has a 32% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon HD 5830 in performance tests.

Be aware that Mobility Radeon HD 5830 is a notebook graphics card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


1 1 vote

Rate Mobility Radeon HD 5830 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 71 votes

Rate NVS 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Mobility Radeon HD 5830 or NVS 510, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.