NVS 300 vs GeForce GTX 970

Place in the ranking	215	1315
Place by popularity	57	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	13.79	0.01
Power efficiency	11.58	1.18
Architecture	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GM204	GT218
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	19 September 2014 (10 years ago)	8 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$329	$109

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 970 has 137800% better value for money than NVS 300.

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	1664	16
Core clock speed	1050 MHz	520 MHz
Boost clock speed	1178 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	5,200 million	260 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	148 Watt	18 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	98 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	122.5	4.160
Floating-point processing power	3.92 TFLOPS	0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs	56	4
TMUs	104	8

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 Express 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	267 mm	145 mm
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	1-slot
Recommended system power (PSU)	500 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	2x 6-pin	None
SLI options	+	-

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	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	7.0 GB/s	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	224 GB/s	12.64 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	Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2	1x DMS-59
Multi monitor support	4 displays	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data
G-SYNC support	+	-
Audio input for HDMI	Internal	no data

Supported technologies

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

GameStream	+	-
GeForce ShadowPlay	+	-
GPU Boost	2.0	no data
GameWorks	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.4	4.1
OpenGL	4.4	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	1.2

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.

GTX 970 25.01
+7968%

NVS 300 0.31

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.

GTX 970 9636
+7864%

NVS 300 121

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	80	0−1
1440p	45	0−1
4K	38	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.11	no data
1440p	7.31	no data
4K	8.66	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

40−45

0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45	0−1
Battlefield 5	80−85 +8100%	1−2 −8100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45	0−1
Far Cry 5	55−60	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +14500%	1−2 −14500%
Hitman 3	50−55	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +11400%	1−2 −11400%
Metro Exodus	85−90 +8500%	1−2 −8500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	85−90 +8400%	1−2 −8400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +10200%	1−2 −10200%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45	0−1
Battlefield 5	80−85 +8100%	1−2 −8100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	52	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45	0−1
Far Cry 5	55−60	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	29	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +14500%	1−2 −14500%
Hitman 3	50−55	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +11400%	1−2 −11400%
Metro Exodus	35	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	65−70	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	85−90 +8400%	1−2 −8400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	109 +10800%	1−2 −10800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +10200%	1−2 −10200%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	40−45	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	36	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45	0−1
Far Cry 5	55−60	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +14500%	1−2 −14500%
Hitman 3	50−55	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	110−120 +11400%	1−2 −11400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	85−90 +8400%	1−2 −8400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	43	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	100−110 +10200%	1−2 −10200%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

65−70

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	45−50	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	35−40	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	24−27	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24−27	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	27−30	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	16−18	0−1
Far Cry 5	27−30	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	140−150 +14200%	1−2 −14200%
Hitman 3	30−33	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	50−55	0−1
Metro Exodus	45−50	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	55−60	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	30−35	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +14000%	1−2 −14000%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

40−45

0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	24−27	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	20	0−1
Hitman 3	20−22	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	120−130 +12700%	1−2 −12700%
Metro Exodus	23	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	29	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	14−16	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	12−14	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	14−16	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7	0−1
Far Cry 5	14−16	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	30−35	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	30−33	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−12	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

21−24

0−1

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	25.01	0.31
Recency	19 September 2014	8 January 2011
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	148 Watt	18 Watt

GTX 970 has a 7967.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 300, on the other hand, has 722.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 970 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 970 is a desktop card while NVS 300 is a workstation one.

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