Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs Quadro NVS 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro NVS 210S Quadro NVS 280 AGP Quadro NVS 280 PCI Quadro NVS 280 PCIe Quadro NVS 280 SD Quadro NVS 285 Quadro NVS 290 Quadro NVS 295
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile Quadro RTX 3000 Max-Q Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile Refresh Quadro RTX 3000 X2 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 290 with Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

NVS 290
2007
256 MB DDR2, 21 Watt
0.59

RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 4361% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

NVS 290 NVS 290
RTX 3000 Mobile RTX 3000 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1207214
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Power efficiency1.9422.69
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG86TU106
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date4 October 2007 (17 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores162304
Core clock speed459 MHz945 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1380 MHz
Number of transistors210 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate3.672198.7
Floating-point processing power0.02938 TFLOPS6.359 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36

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
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
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 typeDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s448.0 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-59No outputs
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 compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.17.5

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

NVS 290 0.59
RTX 3000 Mobile 26.32
+4361%

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
RTX 3000 Mobile 10116
+4337%

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 HD2−3
−5050%
103
+5050%
4K1−2
−8700%
88
+8700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p74.50no data
4K149.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Metro Exodus 91
+0%
91
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 44
+0%
44
+0%
Far Cry 5 86
+0%
86
+0%
Fortnite 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 43
+0%
43
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 110
+0%
110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
World of Tanks 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Dota 2 121
+0%
121
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
World of Tanks 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Valorant 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Dota 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Dota 2 88
+0%
88
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

This is how NVS 290 and RTX 3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 5050% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 8700% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.59 26.32
Recency 4 October 2007 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 80 Watt

NVS 290 has 281% lower power consumption.

RTX 3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4361% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 290 is a workstation card while Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile 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.

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 RTX 3000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

NVS 290 Quadro NVS 290
vs
FX 570 Quadro FX 570
RTX 3000 Mobile Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile
vs
RTX A2000 Mobile RTX A2000 Mobile
NVS 290 Quadro NVS 290
vs
FX 5500 Quadro FX 5500
256 DDR GeForce 256 DDR
vs
RTX 4050 GeForce RTX 4050
Quadro 2000 Quadro 2000
vs
ATI HD 2900 GT Radeon HD 2900 GT
FX 1800 Quadro FX 1800
vs
ATI HD 2900 GT Radeon HD 2900 GT
FX 3800 Quadro FX 3800
vs
HD Graphics 520 HD Graphics 520
FX 4800 Mac Edition Quadro FX 4800 Mac Edition
vs
RTX 3060 GeForce RTX 3060
K2200M Quadro K2200M
vs
Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EUs
PRO WX 3100 Radeon PRO WX 3100
vs
Quadro4 380 XGL Quadro4 380 XGL
P4000 Mobile Quadro P4000 Mobile
vs
FX 3600M Quadro FX 3600M
P4000 Mobile Quadro P4000 Mobile
vs
K2200M Quadro K2200M
P4000 Mobile Quadro P4000 Mobile
vs
GTX 1660 Ti Mobile Refresh GeForce GTX 1660 Ti Mobile Refresh

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.5 22 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 317 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.