NVS 3100M vs Radeon RX Vega 5
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 5 with NVS 3100M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 5 outperforms 3100M by a whopping 769% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 715 | 1294 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.80 | 2.69 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 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 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 606 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1400 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.04698 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 8 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 32 KB |
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 | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.64 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | 1.2 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 19
+850%
| 2−3
−850%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 43
+975%
|
4−5
−975%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 29
+867%
|
3−4
−867%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 52
+940%
|
5−6
−940%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+111%
|
27−30
−111%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50
+194%
|
16−18
−194%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 39
+255%
|
10−12
−255%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Fortnite | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+111%
|
27−30
−111%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Dota 2 | 37
+236%
|
10−12
−236%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 16−18
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+111%
|
27−30
−111%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+820%
|
5−6
−820%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how RX Vega 5 and NVS 3100M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 5 is 850% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 5 is 1550% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 5 surpassed NVS 3100M in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.26 | 0.49 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 7 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 14 Watt |
RX Vega 5 has a 769.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 3100M, on the other hand, has 7.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 5 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 5 is a notebook graphics card while NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
