NVS 510 vs NVS 3100M

Place in performance ranking	1187	881
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.14
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	N10M-NS	GK107
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	7 January 2010 (14 years ago)	23 October 2012 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449
Current price	$269	$61 (0.1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 3100M and NVS 510 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	16	192
Core clock speed	600 MHz	797 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.848	12.75
Floating-point performance	46.98 gflops	306.0 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on NVS 3100M and NVS 510 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	160 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR3, DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1782 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.64 GB/s	28.51 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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

No outputs

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	1.2	3.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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 3100M 0.53

NVS 510 1.81
+242%

NVS 510 outperforms NVS 3100M by 242% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

NVS 3100M 204

NVS 510 699
+243%

NVS 510 outperforms NVS 3100M by 243% in Passmark.

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4
−233%

10−11

+233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Hitman 3	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −218%	35−40 +218%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −238%	27−30 +238%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Hitman 3	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −218%	35−40 +218%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −238%	27−30 +238%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −200%	6−7 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −218%	35−40 +218%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −233%	10−11 +233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry 5	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Metro Exodus	4−5 −200%	12−14 +200%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−200%

6−7
+200%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.53	1.81
Recency	7 January 2010	23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	35 Watt