Quadro NVS 135M vs Radeon 530

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon 530 with Quadro NVS 135M, including specs and performance data.

Radeon 530
2017
4 GB DDR3/GDDR5, 50 Watt
2.66
+1946%

530 outperforms NVS 135M by a whopping 1946% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8131434
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.650.89
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameWestonG86
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date18 April 2017 (7 years ago)9 May 2007 (17 years ago)

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 cores38416
Core clock speed730 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1024 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,550 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate24.583.200
Floating-point processing power0.7864 TFLOPS0.0256 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs248

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
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 typeDDR3/GDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB256 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHz594 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s9.504 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
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. 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.

Radeon 530 2.66
+1946%
NVS 135M 0.13

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.

Radeon 530 1025
+1950%
NVS 135M 50

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 HD150−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16
+433%
3−4
−433%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 8
+300%
2−3
−300%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 35
+3400%
1−2
−3400%
Hitman 3 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Metro Exodus 13 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 13 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18
+350%
4−5
−350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+35.7%
27−30
−35.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7
+250%
2−3
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 32
+3100%
1−2
−3100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Metro Exodus 5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+35.7%
27−30
−35.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+163%
8−9
−163%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6
−50%
9−10
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
+35.7%
27−30
−35.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4 0−1
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Assassin's Creed Odyssey, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 530 is 433% faster.
  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 135M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Radeon 530 is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
  • NVS 135M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.66 0.13
Recency 18 April 2017 9 May 2007
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 10 Watt

Radeon 530 has a 1946.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 135M, on the other hand, has 400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 530 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 135M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon 530 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 135M 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.


AMD Radeon 530
Radeon 530
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 135M
Quadro NVS 135M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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

Community ratings

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


3.2 726 votes

Rate Radeon 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 20 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 135M 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.