Quadro NVS 290 vs Radeon HD 8410G

Place in performance ranking	1042	1167
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	no data
Architecture	TeraScale 3 (2010−2013)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Trinity	G86
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	23 May 2013 (11 years ago)	4 October 2007 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$149
Current price	$338	$68 (0.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

HD 8410G and NVS 290 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	192	16
Core clock speed	450 MHz	459 MHz
Boost clock speed	600 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,303 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	32 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	35 Watt	21 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.640	3.672
Floating-point performance	no data	29.376 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon HD 8410G and Quadro NVS 290 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	IGP	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	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	System Shared	DDR2
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	256 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	6.4 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

No outputs

1x DMS-59

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.0	4.0
OpenGL	4.4	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	no data	1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

HD 8410G 1.13
+91.5%

NVS 290 0.59

Radeon HD 8410G outperforms Quadro NVS 290 by 92% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

HD 8410G 435
+90.8%

NVS 290 228

Radeon HD 8410G outperforms Quadro NVS 290 by 91% in Passmark.

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 Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4
+200%

1−2

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Hitman 3	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Hitman 3	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	1−2	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2	0−1