Radeon Pro Vega 16 vs Quadro NVS 210S
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 396 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.55 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | GCN 5.0 (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | C51 | Vega 12 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 22 December 2003 (20 years ago) | 14 November 2018 (6 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 cores | no data | 1024 |
| Core clock speed | 425 MHz | 815 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1190 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 75 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 0.85 | 76.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 2.437 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 1 | 32 |
| TMUs | 2 | 64 |
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 size | no data | large |
| Interface | PCI | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Width | IGP | no 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 type | System Shared | HBM2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 1024 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1200 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 307.2 GB/s |
| Shared memory | no data | - |
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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.3 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 22 December 2003 | 14 November 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 11 Watt | 75 Watt |
NVS 210S has 581.8% lower power consumption.
Pro Vega 16, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 14 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Quadro NVS 210S and Radeon Pro Vega 16. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 210S is a workstation card while Radeon Pro Vega 16 is a mobile workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
