GeForce FX Go 5200 vs Quadro NVS 110M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 110M with GeForce FX Go 5200, including specs and performance data.

NVS 110M
2006
512 MB DDR, 10 Watt
0.11
+450%

NVS 110M outperforms FX Go 5200 by a whopping 450% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking14831534
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.83no data
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)no data
GPU code nameG72NV31M
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2006 (19 years ago)1 March 2003 (22 years ago)

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 cores75
Core clock speed300 MHz1 MHz
Boost clock speed300 MHz300 MHz
Number of transistors112 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology90 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Wattno data
Texture fill rate1.200no data
ROPs2no data
TMUs4no data

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeDDRDDR
Maximum RAM amount512 MB32 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed300 MHz300 MHz
Memory bandwidth4.8 GB/sno data
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)DDR
Shader Model3.0no data
OpenGL2.1no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

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.

NVS 110M 0.11
+450%
FX Go 5200 0.02

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 110M 47
+488%
FX Go 5200 8

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Valorant 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+4.3%
21−24
−4.3%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Fortnite, with 4K resolution and the Epic Preset, the NVS 110M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • NVS 110M is ahead in 10 tests (56%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (44%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.11 0.02
Recency 1 June 2006 1 March 2003
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 32 MB
Chip lithography 90 nm 150 nm

NVS 110M has a 450% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 66.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro NVS 110M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce FX Go 5200 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 110M is a mobile workstation graphics card while GeForce FX Go 5200 is a mobile workstation one.

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 NVS 110M
Quadro NVS 110M
NVIDIA GeForce FX Go 5200
GeForce FX Go 5200

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.


2.3 7 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 110M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 24 votes

Rate GeForce FX Go 5200 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 110M or GeForce FX Go 5200, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.