Quadro RTX 5000 vs Quadro NVS 135M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 135M with Quadro RTX 5000, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5000 outperforms NVS 135M by a whopping 31415% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1445 | 103 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 15.48 |
| Power efficiency | 0.90 | 12.23 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G86 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 13 August 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,299 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 cores | 16 | 3072 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 1620 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1815 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 230 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 348.5 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0256 TFLOPS | 11.15 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 8 | 192 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 384 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 48 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 594 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 9.504 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 7.5 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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.
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
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−31329%
|
2200−2250
+31329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−31329%
|
2200−2250
+31329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−29900%
|
600−650
+29900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−31329%
|
2200−2250
+31329%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−31300%
|
7850−7900
+31300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−31329%
|
2200−2250
+31329%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−11
−31400%
|
3150−3200
+31400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−31150%
|
2500−2550
+31150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−29900%
|
600−650
+29900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−31329%
|
2200−2250
+31329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−31150%
|
1250−1300
+31150%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−31300%
|
7850−7900
+31300%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−31329%
|
2200−2250
+31329%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
| Dota 2 | 8−9
−31150%
|
2500−2550
+31150%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−29900%
|
600−650
+29900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−31329%
|
2200−2250
+31329%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−31150%
|
1250−1300
+31150%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−31300%
|
7850−7900
+31300%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−31233%
|
4700−4750
+31233%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−29900%
|
300−310
+29900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−29900%
|
600−650
+29900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−29900%
|
600−650
+29900%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.13 | 40.97 |
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 13 August 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 230 Watt |
NVS 135M has 2200% lower power consumption.
RTX 5000, on the other hand, has a 31415.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Quadro RTX 5000 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 135M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 135M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro RTX 5000 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
