NVS 300 vs Quadro FX 5600

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 5600 and NVS 300, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 5600
2007
1536 MB GDDR3, 171 Watt
1.36
+339%

FX 5600 outperforms NVS 300 by a whopping 339% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10161317
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.010.01
Power efficiency0.551.20
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameG80GT218
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date5 March 2007 (17 years ago)8 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,999 $109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

FX 5600 and NVS 300 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 cores12816
Core clock speed600 MHz520 MHz
Number of transistors681 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)171 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate38.404.160
Floating-point processing power0.3456 TFLOPS0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs244
TMUs328

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
Length254 mm145 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone

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 amount1536 MB512 MB
Memory bus width384 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz790 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s12.64 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-Video1x DMS-59

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.04.1
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+1.2

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 5600 1.36
+339%
NVS 300 0.31

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 5600 525
+334%
NVS 300 121

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 1.36 0.31
Recency 5 March 2007 8 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 512 MB
Chip lithography 90 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 171 Watt 18 Watt

FX 5600 has a 338.7% higher aggregate performance score, and a 200% higher maximum VRAM amount.

NVS 300, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 125% more advanced lithography process, and 850% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 5600 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 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 5600
Quadro FX 5600
NVIDIA NVS 300
NVS 300

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 5 votes

Rate Quadro FX 5600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 45 votes

Rate NVS 300 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.