Quadro NVS 290 vs GeForce GTS 360M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTS 360M with Quadro NVS 290, including specs and performance data.

GTS 360M
2010
1 GB GDDR5, 38 Watt
1.69
+186%

GTS 360M outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 186% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9361204
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
Power efficiency3.051.93
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGT215G86
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)4 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores9616
Core clock speed550 MHz459 MHz
Number of transistors727 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)38 Watt21 Watt
Texture fill rate17.603.672
Floating-point processing power0.2757 TFLOPS0.02938 TFLOPS
Gigaflops413no data
ROPs84
TMUs328

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-IIPCIe 1.0 x16
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
SLI options+-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR5DDR2
Maximum RAM amount1 GB256 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 2000 MHz400 MHz
Memory bandwidth57.6 GB/s6.4 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 ConnectorsSingle Link DVILVDSHDMIDual Link DVIDisplayPortVGA1x DMS-59
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL2.13.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+1.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTS 360M 1.69
+186%
NVS 290 0.59

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.

GTS 360M 653
+186%
NVS 290 228

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:

900p18
+200%
6−7
−200%
Full HD23
+188%
8−9
−188%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data18.63

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Battlefield 5 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
Hitman 3 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+200%
4−5
−200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+240%
10−11
−240%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

This is how GTS 360M and NVS 290 compete in popular games:

  • GTS 360M is 200% faster in 900p
  • GTS 360M is 188% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.69 0.59
Recency 7 January 2010 4 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 256 MB
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 38 Watt 21 Watt

GTS 360M has a 186.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 290, on the other hand, has 81% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTS 360M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTS 360M is a notebook card while Quadro NVS 290 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTS 360M
GeForce GTS 360M
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 30 votes

Rate GeForce GTS 360M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 21 vote

Rate Quadro NVS 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.