Quadro NVS 110M vs Radeon Pro 560X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon Pro 560X and Quadro NVS 110M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Pro 560X outperforms NVS 110M by a whopping 7875% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 474 | 1450 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 8.75 | 0.82 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Polaris 21 | G72 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 16 July 2018 (6 years ago) | 1 June 2006 (18 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 | 1024 | 7 |
| Core clock speed | 1004 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 112 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 64.26 | 1.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.056 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 2 |
| TMUs | 64 | 4 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1270 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 81.28 GB/s | 4.8 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
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.
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 | 41 | 0−1 |
| 1440p | 43 | 0−1 |
| 4K | 17 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 43 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 37 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 66 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 53
+2550%
|
2−3
−2550%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+252%
|
24−27
−252%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 36 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 86
+760%
|
10−11
−760%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 71
+788%
|
8−9
−788%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 40 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50
+2400%
|
2−3
−2400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 33 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 19 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40
+567%
|
6−7
−567%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 34
+1033%
|
3−4
−1033%
|
| Valorant | 85−90
+252%
|
24−27
−252%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 33 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Dota 2 | 69
+763%
|
8−9
−763%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 31 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 36
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+433%
|
6−7
−433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
| Valorant | 26
+4%
|
24−27
−4%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 32 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 57 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+10000%
|
1−2
−10000%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 18−20 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
−15.4%
|
14−16
+15.4%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 45−50
+4600%
|
1−2
−4600%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 560X is 4600% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the NVS 110M is 15% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Pro 560X is ahead in 31 test (97%)
- NVS 110M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.57 | 0.12 |
| Recency | 16 July 2018 | 1 June 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 512 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 10 Watt |
Pro 560X has a 7875% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 110M, on the other hand, has 650% lower power consumption.
The Radeon Pro 560X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 110M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
