Quadro FX 1400 vs NVS 300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 300 and Quadro FX 1400, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 300
2011
512 MB DDR3, 18 Watt
0.31

FX 1400 outperforms NVS 300 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13181307
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.180.40
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGT218NV41
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date8 January 2011 (13 years ago)9 August 2004 (20 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $799

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 300 and FX 1400 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores16no data
Core clock speed520 MHz350 MHz
Number of transistors260 million222 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt55 Watt
Texture fill rate4.1604.200
Floating-point processing power0.03936 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48
TMUs812

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3DDR
Maximum RAM amount512 MB128 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz300 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s19.2 GB/s

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 Connectors1x DMS-592x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.13.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.2-

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

NVS 300 0.31
FX 1400 0.32
+3.2%

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.

NVS 300 121
FX 1400 124
+2.5%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.31 0.32
Recency 8 January 2011 9 August 2004
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 128 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 55 Watt

NVS 300 has an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 225% more advanced lithography process, and 205.6% lower power consumption.

FX 1400, on the other hand, has a 3.2% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between NVS 300 and Quadro FX 1400.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA NVS 300
NVS 300
NVIDIA Quadro FX 1400
Quadro FX 1400

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.2 46 votes

Rate NVS 300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 34 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.