GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile vs Quadro NVS 280 PCI

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 280 PCI with GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

NVS 280 PCI
2003
64 MB DDR, 13 Watt
0.02

RTX 2050 Mobile outperforms NVS 280 PCI by a whopping 93350% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1497305
Place by popularitynot in top-10029
Power efficiency0.1128.53
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameNV34 B1GA107
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date28 October 2003 (21 year ago)17 December 2021 (3 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 coresno data2048
Core clock speed275 MHz1185 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1477 MHz
Number of transistors45 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology150 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)13 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate1.10094.53
Floating-point processing powerno data6.05 TFLOPS
ROPs232
TMUs464
Tensor Coresno data256
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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 datalarge
InterfacePCIPCIe 3.0 x8
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno 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 typeDDRGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount64 MB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed250 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth8 GB/s112.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DMS-591x DVI, 1x HDMI 2.1, 2x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0a12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.6
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)4.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

Gaming performance

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

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD-0−141
1440p-0−134
4K-0−126

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 36
+0%
36
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 47
+0%
47
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 49
+0%
49
+0%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30
+0%
30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 42
+0%
42
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 30
+0%
30
+0%
Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 29
+0%
29
+0%
Dota 2 118
+0%
118
+0%
Far Cry 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 68
+0%
68
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 58
+0%
58
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 25
+0%
25
+0%
Dota 2 110
+0%
110
+0%
Far Cry 5 49
+0%
49
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 33
+0%
33
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 37
+0%
37
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Valorant 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Dota 2 34
+0%
34
+0%
Far Cry 5 18
+0%
18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 67 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.02 18.69
Recency 28 October 2003 17 December 2021
Maximum RAM amount 64 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 150 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 13 Watt 45 Watt

NVS 280 PCI has 246.2% lower power consumption.

RTX 2050 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 93350% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 18 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1775% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 280 PCI in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 280 PCI is a workstation card while GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile is a notebook 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 280 PCI
Quadro NVS 280 PCI
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile
GeForce RTX 2050

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.


4.8 8 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 280 PCI on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 2461 vote

Rate GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 280 PCI or GeForce RTX 2050 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.