Quadro RTX A6000 vs NVS 810

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
GRID M3-3020 GRID M10-8Q GRID M40 NVS 810 K620 K1200 K2200 Tesla M10
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
A10 PCIe A10G A10M A40 PCIe CMP 90HX Quadro RTX 8200 Quadro RTX A6000 A40 A4500 A5000 A5000-8Q A5500

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 810 and Quadro RTX A6000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 810
2015
2 GB DDR3, 68 Watt
2.85

RTX A6000 outperforms NVS 810 by a whopping 1808% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
NVS 810 NVS 810
RTX A6000 RTX A6000

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking82555
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data4.87
Power efficiency3.2213.92
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameGM107GA102
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date4 November 2015 (10 years ago)5 October 2020 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$4,649

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 cores512 ×210752
Core clock speed902 MHz1410 MHz
Boost clock speed1033 MHz1800 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)68 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate33.06 ×2604.8
Floating-point processing power1.058 TFLOPS ×238.71 TFLOPS
ROPs16 ×2112
TMUs32 ×2336
Tensor Coresno data336
Ray Tracing Coresno data84
L1 Cache256 KB10.5 MB
L2 Cache1024 KB6 MB

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 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length198 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone8-pin EPS

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 amount2 GB ×248 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit ×2384 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s ×2768.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

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 Connectors8x mini-DisplayPort4x DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA5.08.6
DLSS-+

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 810 2.85
RTX A6000 54.37
+1808%

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 810 1191
Samples: 29
RTX A6000 22750
+1810%
Samples: 421

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 HD8−9
−1875%
158
+1875%
1440p6−7
−1950%
123
+1950%
4K5−6
−2020%
106
+2020%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data29.42
1440pno data37.80
4Kno data43.86

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 280−290
+0%
280−290
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 280−290
+0%
280−290
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Fortnite 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 280−290
+0%
280−290
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Dota 2 139
+0%
139
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Fortnite 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 128
+0%
128
+0%
Metro Exodus 98
+0%
98
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 307
+0%
307
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Dota 2 131
+0%
131
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 180
+0%
180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 400−450
+0%
400−450
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 96
+0%
96
+0%
Metro Exodus 84
+0%
84
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 52
+0%
52
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 155
+0%
155
+0%
Metro Exodus 70
+0%
70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 146
+0%
146
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Dota 2 128
+0%
128
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 50
+0%
50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

This is how NVS 810 and RTX A6000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A6000 is 1875% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A6000 is 1950% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A6000 is 2020% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 2.85 54.37
Recency 4 November 2015 5 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 48 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 68 Watt 300 Watt

NVS 810 has 341.2% lower power consumption.

RTX A6000, on the other hand, has a 1807.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 810 in performance tests.

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 810
NVS 810
NVIDIA Quadro RTX A6000
Quadro RTX A6000
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 810 NVS 810
vs
FirePro V5900 FirePro V5900
RTX A6000 Quadro RTX A6000
vs
RTX A5000 RTX A5000
NVS 810 NVS 810
vs
FirePro V4900 FirePro V4900
M6000 24 GB Quadro M6000 24 GB
vs
Jetson AGX Orin 64 GB AGX Orin 64 GB
Tesla M4 Tesla M4
vs
Radeon 760M 760M
Tesla M4 Tesla M4
vs
RTX 3050 6 GB 3050 6 GB
Tesla M40 Tesla M40
vs
RTX 5060 Ti 16 GB 5060 Ti 16 GB
NVS 810 NVS 810
vs
Pro WX 8200 8200
NVS 810 NVS 810
vs
Apple M1 Pro 14-Core GPU 14-Core GPU
NVS 810 NVS 810
vs
Steam Deck GPU GPU
NVS 810 NVS 810
vs
Arc 7 A730M A730M
NVS 810 NVS 810
vs
RTX 4080 Ti Max-Q 4080 Ti Max-Q
Tesla M6 Tesla M6
vs
GTX 1050 Mobile 3 GB 1050 Mobile 3 GB

Community ratings

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

3.3 8 votes

Rate NVS 810 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 512 votes

Rate Quadro RTX A6000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 810 or Quadro RTX A6000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.