NVS 510 vs GeForce 410M

Place in the ranking	1188	933
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.11
Power efficiency	3.93	3.51
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GF119	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	5 January 2011 (14 years ago)	23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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	48	192
Core clock speed	575 MHz	797 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.600	12.75
Floating-point processing power	0.1104 TFLOPS	0.306 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	73	no data
ROPs	4	16
TMUs	8	16

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).

Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	160 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	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 512 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	28.51 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	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI	4x mini-DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management

8.0

no data

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	+	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	+	3.0

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.

GeForce 410M 0.68

NVS 510 1.77
+160%

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.

GeForce 410M 264

NVS 510 688
+161%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GeForce 410M 1003

NVS 510 1701
+69.6%

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

−125%

18−21
+125%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

24.94

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
Valorant	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	18−20 −137%	45−50 +137%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Dota 2	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Valorant	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −157%	18−20 +157%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
Dota 2	12−14 −150%	30−33 +150%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −125%	18−20 +125%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%
Valorant	27−30 −159%	75−80 +159%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	0−1	0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

1−2

−100%

2−3
+100%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart	0−1	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −133%	35−40 +133%
Valorant	4−5 −150%	10−11 +150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −150%	5−6 +150%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3

−150%

5−6
+150%

This is how GeForce 410M and NVS 510 compete in popular games:

NVS 510 is 125% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.68	1.77
Recency	5 January 2011	23 October 2012
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	35 Watt

GeForce 410M has 191.7% lower power consumption.

NVS 510, on the other hand, has a 160.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 410M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 410M is a notebook card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.