Quadro NVS 290 vs NVS 5400M
Aggregated performance score
NVS 5400M outperforms Quadro NVS 290 by 173% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 910 | 1165 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.05 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | N13P-NS1 | G86 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 June 2012 (11 years ago) | 4 October 2007 (16 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $149 |
| Current price | $381 | $68 (0.5x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
NVS 5400M and NVS 290 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 | 96 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 660 MHz | 459 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 585 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 21 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.56 | 3.672 |
| Floating-point performance | 253.4 gflops | 29.376 gflops |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on NVS 5400M and Quadro NVS 290 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.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 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 | DDR3 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 28.8 GB/s | 6.4 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 | 1x DMS-59 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
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 5400M outperforms Quadro NVS 290 by 173% based on our aggregated 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 5400M outperforms Quadro NVS 290 by 174% in Passmark.
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 | 17
+183%
| 6−7
−183%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
This is how NVS 5400M and NVS 290 compete in popular games:
- NVS 5400M is 183% faster than NVS 290 in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.61 | 0.59 |
| Recency | 1 June 2012 | 4 October 2007 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | 256 MB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 21 Watt |
The NVS 5400M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.
Be aware that NVS 5400M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro NVS 290 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
