Quadro NVS 5100M vs Radeon HD 8690M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8690M with Quadro NVS 5100M, including specs and performance data.
HD 8690M outperforms NVS 5100M by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 833 | 1127 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.85 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | GT2xx (2010) |
| GPU code name | Sun | N10P-NS |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 1 March 2013 (11 years ago) | 7 January 2010 (15 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 cores | 320 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 825 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 16.50 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.528 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 20 | no data |
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 | medium sized | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | no data |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_1) | 10.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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 | 15
+200%
| 5−6
−200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+118%
|
10−12
−118%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 45−50
+114%
|
21−24
−114%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+118%
|
10−12
−118%
|
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how HD 8690M and NVS 5100M compete in popular games:
- HD 8690M is 200% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8690M is 367% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8690M is ahead in 31 test (91%)
- there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.39 | 0.88 |
| Recency | 1 March 2013 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
HD 8690M has a 171.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 8690M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 5100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 8690M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 5100M 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
