Quadro NVS 285 vs GeForce RTX 3080

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 3080 with Quadro NVS 285, including specs and performance data.

RTX 3080
2020
10 GB GDDR6X, 320 Watt
65.41
+59364%

RTX 3080 outperforms NVS 285 by a whopping 59364% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking261442
Place by popularity93not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation46.25no data
Power efficiency14.250.43
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameGA102NV44 A2
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 September 2020 (4 years ago)6 June 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$699 $27.99

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 cores8704no data
Core clock speed1440 MHz275 MHz
Boost clock speed1710 MHzno data
Number of transistors28,300 million75 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm110 nm
Power consumption (TDP)320 Watt18 Watt
Texture fill rate465.11.100
Floating-point processing power29.77 TFLOPSno data
ROPs962
TMUs2724
Tensor Cores272no data
Ray Tracing Cores68no data

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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length285 mm168 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 12-pinNone

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 typeGDDR6XDDR
Maximum RAM amount10 GB128 MB
Memory bus width320 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1188 MHz250 MHz
Memory bandwidth760.3 GB/s8 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort1x DMS-59
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.53.0
OpenGL4.62.1
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2N/A
CUDA8.5-

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.

RTX 3080 65.41
+59364%
NVS 285 0.11

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.

RTX 3080 25233
+59979%
NVS 285 42

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 HD169-0−1
1440p127-0−1
4K86-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p4.14no data
1440p5.50no data
4K8.13no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 120−130 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 130−140 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 111 0−1
Battlefield 5 200−210 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 110−120 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 138 0−1
Far Cry 5 110−120 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 150−160 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 0−1
Hitman 3 116 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 240−250 0−1
Metro Exodus 144 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 131 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 270−280 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 248 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 130−140 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 96 0−1
Battlefield 5 200−210 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 110−120 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 134 0−1
Far Cry 5 110−120 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 150−160 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 0−1
Hitman 3 118 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 240−250 0−1
Metro Exodus 144 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 120−130 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 326 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 130−140 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 238 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 130−140 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 88 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 110−120 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 131 0−1
Far Cry 5 110−120 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 230−240 0−1
Hitman 3 110 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 182 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 287 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 149 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 101 0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 131 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 150−160 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 100−110 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 75−80 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 76 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 75−80 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 86 0−1
Far Cry 5 75−80 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 270−280 0−1
Hitman 3 112 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 151 0−1
Metro Exodus 107 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 219 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 247 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 130 0−1

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70 0−1
Hitman 3 57 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 220−230 0−1
Metro Exodus 142 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 115 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 52 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 43 0−1
Far Cry 5 45−50 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 100−110 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 135 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 54 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 95 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 65.41 0.11
Recency 1 September 2020 6 June 2006
Maximum RAM amount 10 GB 128 MB
Chip lithography 8 nm 110 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 320 Watt 18 Watt

RTX 3080 has a 59363.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, a 7900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1275% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 285, on the other hand, has 1677.8% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 285 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 3080 is a desktop card while Quadro NVS 285 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 RTX 3080
GeForce RTX 3080
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 285
Quadro NVS 285

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.


4.2 5949 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3080 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 5 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 285 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.