RTX 6000 Ada Generation vs Quadro NVS 320M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 320M with RTX 6000 Ada Generation, including specs and performance data.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation outperforms 320M by a whopping 13544% 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 | 1293 | 24 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.26 |
| Power efficiency | 1.92 | 17.47 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | G84 | AD102 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 9 June 2007 (18 years ago) | 3 December 2022 (3 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $6,799 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
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 | 32 | 18176 |
| Core clock speed | 575 MHz | 915 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2505 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 289 million | 76,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 80 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 300 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 9.200 | 1,423 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0736 TFLOPS | 91.06 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 192 |
| TMUs | 16 | 568 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 568 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 142 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 17.8 MB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 96 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 size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-HE | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 16-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 type | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 48 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 384 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | 2500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 GB/s | 960.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| 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 | No outputs | 4x DisplayPort 1.4a |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | 8.9 |
| 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.
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.
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 | 1−2
−18400%
| 185
+18400%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−16000%
| 161
+16000%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 108 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 36.75 |
| 1440p | no data | 42.23 |
| 4K | no data | 62.95 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6775%
|
270−280
+6775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1378%
|
350−400
+1378%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−1535%
|
270−280
+1535%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−13536%
|
1500−1550
+13536%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6775%
|
270−280
+6775%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 114 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−9680%
|
489
+9680%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1378%
|
350−400
+1378%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−17300%
|
170−180
+17300%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−13536%
|
1500−1550
+13536%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−6775%
|
270−280
+6775%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−2075%
|
170−180
+2075%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−5100%
|
260
+5100%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−1378%
|
350−400
+1378%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−7067%
|
210−220
+7067%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 2−3
−25700%
|
500−550
+25700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−3400%
|
170−180
+3400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−5900%
|
120−130
+5900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−11900%
|
240−250
+11900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−21800%
|
219
+21800%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 150−160 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1093%
|
160−170
+1093%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−10867%
|
300−350
+10867%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−4700%
|
95−100
+4700%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3850%
|
75−80
+3850%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 130
+0%
|
130
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 126
+0%
|
126
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 95
+0%
|
95
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 100−110
+0%
|
100−110
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 40
+0%
|
40
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 90
+0%
|
90
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 184
+0%
|
184
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 95−100
+0%
|
95−100
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 80−85
+0%
|
80−85
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
This is how NVS 320M and RTX 6000 Ada Generation compete in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 18400% faster in 1080p
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 16000% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 6000 Ada Generation is 25700% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 6000 Ada Generation performs better in 26 tests (44%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (56%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.50 | 68.22 |
| Recency | 9 June 2007 | 3 December 2022 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 48 GB |
| Chip lithography | 80 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 20 Watt | 300 Watt |
NVS 320M has 1400% lower power consumption.
RTX 6000 Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 13544% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1500% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 6000 Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 320M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 320M is a mobile workstation graphics card while RTX 6000 Ada Generation is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
