Quadro FX 5500 vs NVS 310

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 310 and Quadro FX 5500, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 310
2012
512 MB DDR3, 20 Watt
0.65
+3.2%

NVS 310 outperforms FX 5500 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 ranking11911196
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Power efficiency2.230.45
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGF119G71
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date26 June 2012 (12 years ago)20 April 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 $2,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 310 and FX 5500 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 cores48no data
Core clock speed523 MHz650 MHz
Number of transistors292 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt96 Watt
Texture fill rate4.18415.60
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPSno data
ROPs416
TMUs824

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
Length156 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed875 MHz505 MHz
Memory bandwidth14 GB/s32.32 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 Connectors2x DisplayPort2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA2.1-

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 310 0.65
+3.2%
FX 5500 0.63

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 310 251
+3.7%
FX 5500 242

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 0.65 0.63
Recency 26 June 2012 20 April 2006
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 1 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 96 Watt

NVS 310 has a 3.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 125% more advanced lithography process, and 380% lower power consumption.

FX 5500, on the other hand, has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between NVS 310 and Quadro FX 5500.


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 310
NVS 310
NVIDIA Quadro FX 5500
Quadro FX 5500

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.


3.3 83 votes

Rate NVS 310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Quadro FX 5500 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.