Quadro T1200 Mobile vs NVS 310

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
NVS 310 NVS 315 Quadro 7000 Quadro Plex 7000 C2075 C2090 M2075 M2090 X2070 X2090
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
T400 Mobile T500 Mobile T600 Mobile T1000 Mobile T1000 Max-Q T1200 Max-Q T1200 Mobile T2000 Mobile T2000 Max-Q T500 Max-Q T550 Mobile T600 Max-Q

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 310 with Quadro T1200 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

NVS 310
2012, $159
512 MB DDR3, 20 Watt
0.65

T1200 Mobile outperforms NVS 310 by a whopping 2562% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
NVS 310 NVS 310
T1200 Mobile T1200 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1234346
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.02no data
Power efficiency2.5174.08
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF119TU117
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date26 June 2012 (13 years ago)12 April 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 no data

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 cores481024
Core clock speed523 MHz855 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1425 MHz
Number of transistors292 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate4.18491.20
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPS2.918 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs864
L1 Cache64 KB1 MB
L2 Cache128 KB1024 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length156 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed875 MHz1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth14 GB/s160.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors2x DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA2.17.5

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 HD2−3
−2800%
58
+2800%
1440p1−2
−3200%
33
+3200%
4K3−4
−2600%
81
+2600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p79.50no data
1440p159.00no data
4K53.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 65
+0%
65
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Dota 2 114
+0%
114
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 71
+0%
71
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Dota 2 107
+0%
107
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry 5 56
+0%
56
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 37
+0%
37
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 41
+0%
41
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 100−105
+0%
100−105
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Dota 2 109
+0%
109
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

This is how NVS 310 and T1200 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • T1200 Mobile is 2800% faster in 1080p
  • T1200 Mobile is 3200% faster in 1440p
  • T1200 Mobile is 2600% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 50 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.65 17.30
Recency 26 June 2012 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 18 Watt

T1200 Mobile has a 2561.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 233.3% more advanced lithography process, and 11.1% lower power consumption.

The Quadro T1200 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 310 is a workstation graphics card while Quadro T1200 Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

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 T1200 Mobile
Quadro T1200 Mobile
Like
Like

Other comparisons

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

NVS 310 NVS 310
vs
FX 570 Quadro FX 570
T1200 Mobile Quadro T1200 Mobile
vs
M5000M Quadro M5000M
NVS 310 NVS 310
vs
GRID K120Q GRID K120Q
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
8400 GS GeForce 8400 GS
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
T1000 Max-Q Quadro T1000 Max-Q
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
T500 Mobile Quadro T500 Mobile
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
T400 Mobile Quadro T400 Mobile
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
T600 Mobile Quadro T600 Mobile
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
T550 Mobile T550 Mobile
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
T1200 Max-Q Quadro T1200 Max-Q
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
T500 Max-Q T500 Max-Q
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
T600 Max-Q T600 Max-Q
NVS 310 NVIDIA NVS 310
vs
Playstation 5 Pro GPU 5 Pro GPU

Community ratings

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

3.2 92 votes

Rate NVS 310 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 159 votes

Rate Quadro T1200 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 310 or Quadro T1200 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.