Radeon Pro W5700X vs Quadro NVS 290
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 290 and Radeon Pro W5700X, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro W5700X outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 7672% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1259 | 102 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.01 | 18.15 |
| Power efficiency | 1.96 | 15.60 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | G86 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 4 October 2007 (17 years ago) | 11 December 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Pro W5700X has 181400% better value for money than NVS 290.
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 cores | 16 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 459 MHz | 1243 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2040 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 210 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 205 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.672 | 293.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.02938 TFLOPS | 9.4 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 4 | 64 |
| TMUs | 8 | 144 |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | 305 mm |
| Width | 1-slot | Quad-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
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 type | DDR2 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 400 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 6.4 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | 1x DMS-59 | 1x HDMI, 4x Thunderbolt |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 41.97 |
| Recency | 4 October 2007 | 11 December 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 21 Watt | 205 Watt |
NVS 290 has 876.2% lower power consumption.
Pro W5700X, on the other hand, has a 7672.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1042.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Pro W5700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
