NVS 510 vs Quadro FX 1500

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 1500 and NVS 510, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 1500
2006
256 MB GDDR3, 65 Watt
0.44

NVS 510 outperforms FX 1500 by a whopping 307% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1244923
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.10
Power efficiency0.463.51
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameG71GK107
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date20 April 2006 (18 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$699 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 1500 and NVS 510 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 coresno data192
Core clock speed325 MHz797 MHz
Number of transistors278 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate7.80012.75
Floating-point processing powerno data0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs1616
TMUs2416

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 1.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length173 mm160 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount256 MB2 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed625 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth40 GB/s28.51 GB/s

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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 (11_0)
Shader Model3.05.1
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA-3.0

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. 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.

FX 1500 0.44
NVS 510 1.79
+307%

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.

FX 1500 169
NVS 510 691
+309%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.44 1.79
Recency 20 April 2006 23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 90 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 65 Watt 35 Watt

NVS 510 has a 306.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 85.7% lower power consumption.

The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 1500 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 Quadro FX 1500
Quadro FX 1500
NVIDIA NVS 510
NVS 510

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.4 33 votes

Rate Quadro FX 1500 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 60 votes

Rate NVS 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.