Radeon RX 6500 XT vs Quadro NVS 280 PCI

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 280 PCI with Radeon RX 6500 XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 280 PCI
2003
64 MB DDR, 13 Watt
0.02

6500 XT outperforms 280 PCI by a whopping 114150% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1554270
Place by popularitynot in top-10084
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data48.45
Power efficiency0.1216.47
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025)
GPU code nameNV34 B1Navi 24
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date28 October 2003 (22 years ago)19 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 data1024
Core clock speed275 MHz2610 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2815 MHz
Number of transistors45 million5,400 million
Manufacturing process technology150 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)13 Watt107 Watt
Texture fill rate1.100180.2
Floating-point processing powerno data5.765 TFLOPS
ROPs232
TMUs464
Ray Tracing Coresno data16
L0 Cacheno data256 KB
L1 Cacheno data256 KB
L2 Cacheno data1024 KB
L3 Cacheno data16 MB

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).

InterfacePCIPCIe 4.0 x4
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-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 typeDDRGDDR6
Maximum RAM amount64 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed250 MHz2248 MHz
Memory bandwidth8 GB/s143.9 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x DMS-591x HDMI 2.1, 1x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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/A2.2
VulkanN/A1.3

Synthetic benchmarks

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 280 PCI 0.02
RX 6500 XT 22.85
+114150%

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 280 PCI 8
Samples: 1
RX 6500 XT 9602
+119925%
Samples: 2619

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-0−163
1440p-0−131
4K-0−117

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.16
1440pno data6.42
4Kno data11.71

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 281
+0%
281
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 72
+0%
72
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 194
+0%
194
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 54
+0%
54
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 102
+0%
102
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 107
+0%
107
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 82
+0%
82
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 34
+0%
34
+0%
Dota 2 145
+0%
145
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 92
+0%
92
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 81
+0%
81
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+0%
86
+0%
Metro Exodus 52
+0%
52
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 92
+0%
92
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%
Dota 2 110
+0%
110
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54
+0%
54
+0%
Valorant 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 35
+0%
35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 37
+0%
37
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+0%
17
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 57
+0%
57
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 7
+0%
7
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 34
+0%
34
+0%
Metro Exodus 11
+0%
11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 28
+0%
28
+0%
Valorant 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4
+0%
4
+0%
Dota 2 67
+0%
67
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 23
+0%
23
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.02 22.85
Recency 28 October 2003 19 January 2022
Maximum RAM amount 64 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 150 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 13 Watt 107 Watt

NVS 280 PCI has 723.1% lower power consumption.

RX 6500 XT, on the other hand, has a 114150% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 18 years, a 12700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 2400% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6500 XT 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 graphics card while Radeon RX 6500 XT is a desktop 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
AMD Radeon RX 6500 XT
Radeon RX 6500 XT

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.


3.7 11 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 3807 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6500 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 280 PCI or Radeon RX 6500 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.