Quadro NVS 290 vs Quadro FX 5800

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 5800 and Quadro NVS 290, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 5800
2008
4 GB GDDR3, 189 Watt
3.18
+439%

FX 5800 outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 439% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7601217
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.050.03
Power efficiency1.151.93
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGT200BG86
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)4 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$3,499 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

FX 5800 has 67% better value for money than NVS 290.

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 cores24016
Core clock speed610 MHz459 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)189 Watt21 Watt
Texture fill rate48.803.672
Floating-point processing power0.6221 TFLOPS0.02938 TFLOPS
ROPs324
TMUs808

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 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length267 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-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 typeGDDR3DDR2
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth102.4 GB/s6.4 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 DisplayPort, 1x S-Video1x DMS-59

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.31.1

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.

FX 5800 3.18
+439%
NVS 290 0.59

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 5800 1221
+436%
NVS 290 228

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 3.18 0.59
Recency 11 November 2008 4 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 189 Watt 21 Watt

FX 5800 has a 439% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 290, on the other hand, has 800% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 5800 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 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 Quadro FX 5800
Quadro FX 5800
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290

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.


3.9 27 votes

Rate Quadro FX 5800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 22 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro FX 5800 or Quadro NVS 290, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.