Quadro NVS 110M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) with Quadro NVS 110M, including specs and performance data.
8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms 110M by a whopping 3627% 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 | 721 | 1505 |
| Place by popularity | 40 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.28 | 0.86 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | G72 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 June 2006 (19 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 | 512 | 7 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 112 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 57.60 | 1.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.843 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 2 |
| TMUs | 32 | 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).
| Interface | IGP | 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 | System Shared | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 300 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 4.8 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 outputs | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
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.
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 | 18 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 10 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 15 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 30 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 17 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+143%
|
7−8
−143%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 22 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 42
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 19 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+133%
|
24−27
−133%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 23 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
+338%
|
8−9
−338%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+667%
|
3−4
−667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+100%
|
7−8
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Valorant | 15
−60%
|
24−27
+60%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+4400%
|
1−2
−4400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| 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
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 15 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 3200% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 110M is 60% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) performs better in 26 tests (96%)
- NVS 110M performs better in 1 test (4%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.10 | 0.11 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 1 June 2006 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 10 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 3627.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 110M, on the other hand, has 50% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 110M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is a notebook graphics card while Quadro NVS 110M 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.
