NVS 310 vs Quadro P4000

Place in the ranking	193	1192
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	17.36	0.04
Power efficiency	19.79	2.27
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GP104	GF119
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	6 February 2017 (7 years ago)	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$815	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

Quadro P4000 has 43300% better value for money than NVS 310.

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	1792	48
Core clock speed	1202 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	1480 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	165.8	4.184
Floating-point processing power	5.304 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	4
TMUs	112	8

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 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	241 mm	156 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin	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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1901 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	192 GB/s	14 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no 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 Connectors	4x DisplayPort	2x DisplayPort
Display Port	1.4	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	-
3D Stereo	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	+	N/A
CUDA	6.1	2.1

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. 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.

Quadro P4000 28.81
+4473%

NVS 310 0.63

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.

Quadro P4000 11603
+4450%

NVS 310 255

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

Quadro P4000 41352
+4599%

NVS 310 880

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

69
+6800%

1−2

−6800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

11.81
+1246%

159.00

−1246%

Quadro P4000 has 1246% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +6100%	1−2 −6100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +8700%	1−2 −8700%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +4500%	3−4 −4500%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +7600%	1−2 −7600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
Valorant	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +8700%	1−2 −8700%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Dota 2	100−105 +4900%	2−3 −4900%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +8400%	1−2 −8400%
Fortnite	140−150 +4667%	3−4 −4667%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +4500%	3−4 −4500%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
Grand Theft Auto V	100−105 +4900%	2−3 −4900%
Metro Exodus	75−80 +7600%	1−2 −7600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +5767%	3−4 −5767%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +6200%	1−2 −6200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +4950%	2−3 −4950%
Valorant	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%
World of Tanks	270−280 +5360%	5−6 −5360%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +8700%	1−2 −8700%
Counter-Strike 2	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +6100%	1−2 −6100%
Dota 2	100−105 +4900%	2−3 −4900%
Far Cry 5	85−90 +8400%	1−2 −8400%
Forza Horizon 4	130−140 +4500%	3−4 −4500%
Forza Horizon 5	75−80 +7800%	1−2 −7800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +5767%	3−4 −5767%
Valorant	120−130 +5900%	2−3 −5900%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	50−55 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
Grand Theft Auto V	50−55 +5200%	1−2 −5200%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	130−140 +4500%	3−4 −4500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27−30	0−1
World of Tanks	190−200 +4775%	4−5 −4775%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60 +5800%	1−2 −5800%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30	0−1
Far Cry 5	90−95 +4550%	2−3 −4550%
Forza Horizon 4	80−85 +8200%	1−2 −8200%
Forza Horizon 5	45−50 +4800%	1−2 −4800%
Metro Exodus	65−70 +6700%	1−2 −6700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Valorant	85−90 +8500%	1−2 −8500%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−12	0−1
Dota 2	55−60 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Grand Theft Auto V	55−60 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Metro Exodus	24−27	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	90−95 +4600%	2−3 −4600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	18−20	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	55−60 +5400%	1−2 −5400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	30−35	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	10−12	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	10−12	0−1
Dota 2	55−60 +5400%	1−2 −5400%
Far Cry 5	40−45	0−1
Fortnite	35−40	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Forza Horizon 5	27−30	0−1
Valorant	40−45	0−1

This is how Quadro P4000 and NVS 310 compete in popular games:

Quadro P4000 is 6800% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	28.81	0.63
Recency	6 February 2017	26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	16 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	100 Watt	20 Watt

Quadro P4000 has a 4473% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 150% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 310, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.

The Quadro P4000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 310 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.