RTX A2000 vs NVS 3100M

Place in the ranking	1240	148
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	93.10
Power efficiency	2.62	34.55
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GT218	GA106
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	7 January 2010 (15 years ago)	10 August 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores	16	3328
Core clock speed	606 MHz	562 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.848	124.8
Floating-point processing power	0.04698 TFLOPS	7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	48
TMUs	8	104
Tensor Cores	no data	104
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	26

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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	167 mm
Width	no data	2-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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.64 GB/s	288.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-
Resizable BAR	-	+

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 1.4a

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.8
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	1.2	8.6
DLSS	-	+

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.

NVS 3100M 0.46

RTX A2000 30.38
+6504%

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 3100M 204

RTX A2000 13584
+6559%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

NVS 3100M 1121

RTX A2000 76281
+6708%

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 HD	1−2 −9100%	92 +9100%
1440p	0−1	44
4K	-0−1	28

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.88
1440p	no data	10.20
4K	no data	16.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −4700%	95−100 +4700%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3650%	75−80 +3650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −4700%	95−100 +4700%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3650%	75−80 +3650%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −3100%	120−130 +3100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −1771%	130−140 +1771%
Valorant	27−30 −621%	200−210 +621%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −4700%	95−100 +4700%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	16−18 −1625%	270−280 +1625%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3650%	75−80 +3650%
Dota 2	10−12 −6264%	700−750 +6264%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −3100%	120−130 +3100%
Metro Exodus	0−1	60
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −1771%	130−140 +1771%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −2825%	117 +2825%
Valorant	27−30 −621%	200−210 +621%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3650%	75−80 +3650%
Dota 2	10−12 −6264%	700−750 +6264%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −3100%	120−130 +3100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −1771%	130−140 +1771%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −1500%	64 +1500%
Valorant	27−30 −621%	200−210 +621%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	1−2 −22600%	220−230 +22600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	5−6 −3400%	170−180 +3400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	35−40
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −8900%	90−95 +8900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −4600%	47 +4600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

1−2

−8300%

80−85
+8300%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	0−1	24−27
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −273%	56 +273%
Valorant	3−4 −6533%	190−200 +6533%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 −2900%	30 +2900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −1900%	40−45 +1900%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3

−1900%

40−45
+1900%

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2

180−190

+0%

180−190

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
Far Cry 5	108 +0%	108 +0%
Fortnite	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	121 +0%	121 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%
Far Cry 5	98 +0%	98 +0%
Fortnite	140−150 +0%	140−150 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	106 +0%	106 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	129 +0%	129 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Far Cry 5	91 +0%	91 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite

140−150

+0%

140−150

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	80−85 +0%	80−85 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	58 +0%	58 +0%
Metro Exodus	34 +0%	34 +0%
Valorant	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Far Cry 5	61 +0%	61 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Metro Exodus	20 +0%	20 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	40 +0%	40 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

This is how NVS 3100M and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:

RTX A2000 is 9100% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A2000 is 22600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX A2000 is ahead in 29 tests (51%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.46	30.38
Recency	7 January 2010	10 August 2021
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	6 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	70 Watt

NVS 3100M has 400% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 6504.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation card while RTX A2000 is a workstation one.