Quadro FX 4000 vs Quadro NVS 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 290 and Quadro FX 4000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 290
2007
256 MB DDR2, 21 Watt
0.54
+125%

NVS 290 outperforms FX 4000 by a whopping 125% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12531400
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency1.950.13
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameG86NV40
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date4 October 2007 (17 years ago)1 April 2004 (21 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 $2,199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

NVS 290 and FX 4000 have a nearly equal value for money.

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 cores16no data
Core clock speed459 MHz375 MHz
Number of transistors210 million222 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt142 Watt
Texture fill rate3.6724.500
Floating-point processing power0.02938 TFLOPSno data
ROPs48
TMUs812

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).

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16AGP 8x
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x Molex

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 typeDDR2GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount256 MB256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz500 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s32 GB/s

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-592x DVI, 1x S-Video

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.03.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.1-

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 290 0.54
+125%
FX 4000 0.24

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 290 228
+126%
FX 4000 101

Gaming performance

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

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 0.24
Recency 4 October 2007 1 April 2004
Chip lithography 80 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 142 Watt

NVS 290 has a 125% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 576.2% lower power consumption.

The Quadro NVS 290 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 4000 in performance tests.

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 290
Quadro NVS 290
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4000
Quadro FX 4000

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.


3.6 23 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 21 votes

Rate Quadro FX 4000 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 290 or Quadro FX 4000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.