Radeon HD 8180 vs NVS 510

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 510 with Radeon HD 8180, including specs and performance data.

NVS 510
2012, $449
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.63
+409%

NVS 510 outperforms HD 8180 by a whopping 409% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9891369
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.04no data
Power efficiency3.586.14
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameGK107Kalindi
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date23 October 2012 (13 years ago)November 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 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 cores192128
Core clock speed797 MHz225 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt4 Watt
Texture fill rate12.751.800
Floating-point processing power0.306 TFLOPS0.0576 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs168
L1 Cache16 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno data

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 x16IGP
Length160 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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed891 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/sno data
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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model5.16.3
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.22.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA3.0-

Synthetic benchmarks

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 510 1.63
+409%
HD 8180 0.32

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 510 680
+407%
Samples: 369
HD 8180 134
Samples: 105

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

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 27 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.63 0.32
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 4 Watt

NVS 510 has a 409.4% higher aggregate performance score.

HD 8180, on the other hand, has 775% lower power consumption.

The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8180 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 510 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon HD 8180 is a notebook 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 510
NVS 510
AMD Radeon HD 8180
Radeon HD 8180

Other comparisons

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.


2.9 69 votes

Rate NVS 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 43 votes

Rate Radeon HD 8180 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 510 or Radeon HD 8180, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.