RTX A4500 Mobile vs Quadro NVS 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
210S 280 AGP 280 PCI 280 PCIe 280 SD 285 290 295
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon
A3000 Mobile A3000 Mobile 12 GB A4000 Max-Q A4000 Mobile A4500 Embedded A4500 Max-Q A4500 Mobile A5000 Max-Q A5000 Mobile

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 290 with RTX A4500 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

NVS 290
2007, $149
256 MB DDR2, 21 Watt
0.55

RTX A4500 Mobile outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 7111% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

Share:
NVS 290 NVS 290
RTX A4500 Mobile RTX A4500 Mobile

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1274120
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.01no data
Power efficiency2.0121.76
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameG86GA104
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date4 October 2007 (18 years ago)22 March 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

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 cores165888
Core clock speed459 MHz930 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1500 MHz
Number of transistors210 million17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt140 Watt
Texture fill rate3.672276.0
Floating-point processing power0.02938 TFLOPS17.66 TFLOPS
ROPs496
TMUs8184
Tensor Coresno data184
Ray Tracing Coresno data46
L1 Cacheno data5.8 MB
L2 Cache16 KB4 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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 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 MB16 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s512.0 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-59Portable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.18.6
DLSS-+

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 290 0.55
RTX A4500 Mobile 39.66
+7111%

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
Samples: 368
RTX A4500 Mobile 16588
+7175%
Samples: 352

Gaming performance

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

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Dota 2 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Dota 2 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 280−290
+0%
280−290
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Far Cry 5 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Metro Exodus 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Valorant 240−250
+0%
240−250
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Dota 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Escape from Tarkov 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.55 39.66
Recency 4 October 2007 22 March 2022
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 16 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 140 Watt

NVS 290 has 566.7% lower power consumption.

RTX A4500 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 7110.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4500 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 290 is a workstation graphics card while RTX A4500 Mobile is a mobile workstation 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 290
Quadro NVS 290
NVIDIA RTX A4500 Mobile
RTX A4500 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 1700 Quadro FX 1700
RTX A4500 Mobile RTX A4500 Mobile
vs
RTX A5000 Mobile RTX A5000 Mobile
NVS 290 Quadro NVS 290
vs
NVS 310 NVS 310
FX 3700 NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700
vs
GT 220 GT 220
FX 3700 NVIDIA Quadro FX 3700
vs
Apple M4 8-core GPU 8 core GPU
NVS 290 NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
vs
GT 520 OEM GT 520 OEM
NVS 290 NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
vs
ATI HD 4650 HD 4650
NVS 290 NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
vs
Tesla M10 Tesla M10
NVS 290 NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
vs
RTX 4070 Ti RTX 4070 Ti
FX 1700 NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
vs
GeForce 720A GeForce 720A
FX 1700 NVIDIA Quadro FX 1700
vs
GTS 450 OEM GTS 450 OEM
FX 370 NVIDIA Quadro FX 370
vs
GTX 660 Rev. 2 GTX 660 Rev. 2
FX 370 NVIDIA Quadro FX 370
vs
GTX 760 X2 GTX 760 X2

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
2.1 44 votes

Rate RTX A4500 Mobile 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 RTX A4500 Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.