Quadro NVS 290 vs GeForce RTX 3090

Place in the ranking	24	1201
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	14.88	no data
Power efficiency	13.68	1.94
Architecture	Ampere (2020−2024)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GA102	G86
Market segment	Desktop	Workstation
Release date	1 September 2020 (4 years ago)	4 October 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$1,499	$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 3090 and NVS 290 have a nearly equal value for money.

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	10496	16
Core clock speed	1395 MHz	459 MHz
Boost clock speed	1695 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	28,300 million	210 million
Manufacturing process technology	8 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	350 Watt	21 Watt
Texture fill rate	556.0	3.672
Floating-point processing power	35.58 TFLOPS	0.02938 TFLOPS
ROPs	112	4
TMUs	328	8
Tensor Cores	328	no data
Ray Tracing Cores	82	no 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).

Interface	PCIe 4.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Length	336 mm	168 mm
Width	3-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	1x 12-pin	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	GDDR6X	DDR2
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	256 MB
Memory bus width	384 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	1219 MHz	400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	936.2 GB/s	6.4 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 Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	1x DMS-59
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
Vulkan	1.2	N/A
CUDA	8.5	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.

RTX 3090 69.28
+11642%

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.

RTX 3090 26729
+11623%

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:

Full HD	203 +20200%	1−2 −20200%
1440p	131 +13000%	1−2 −13000%
4K	90	0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	7.38	149.00
1440p	11.44	149.00
4K	16.66	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

207
+20600%

1−2

−20600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	159 +15800%	1−2 −15800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	114	0−1
Battlefield 5	220−230 +22100%	1−2 −22100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	110−120 +11800%	1−2 −11800%
Cyberpunk 2077	176 +17500%	1−2 −17500%
Far Cry 5	110−120	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	160−170 +16800%	1−2 −16800%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +11800%	2−3 −11800%
Hitman 3	117	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	250−260 +12550%	2−3 −12550%
Metro Exodus	144 +14300%	1−2 −14300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	130 +12900%	1−2 −12900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	290−300 +14500%	2−3 −14500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	200 +19900%	1−2 −19900%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	247 +12250%	2−3 −12250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	105	0−1
Battlefield 5	220−230 +22100%	1−2 −22100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	110−120 +11800%	1−2 −11800%
Cyberpunk 2077	151 +15000%	1−2 −15000%
Far Cry 5	110−120	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	160−170 +16800%	1−2 −16800%
Forza Horizon 4	230−240 +11800%	2−3 −11800%
Hitman 3	117	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	250−260 +12550%	2−3 −12550%
Metro Exodus	144 +14300%	1−2 −14300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	120−130 +12100%	1−2 −12100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	402 +13300%	3−4 −13300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	140−150 +14800%	1−2 −14800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	199 +19800%	1−2 −19800%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	108	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	91	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	110−120 +11800%	1−2 −11800%
Cyberpunk 2077	134 +13300%	1−2 −13300%
Far Cry 5	110−120	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	217 +21600%	1−2 −21600%
Hitman 3	116	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	295 +14650%	2−3 −14650%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	351 +17450%	2−3 −17450%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	181 +18000%	1−2 −18000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	107	0−1

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

129
+12800%

1−2

−12800%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	160−170 +16400%	1−2 −16400%
Far Cry New Dawn	110−120	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	93	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	79	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	80−85	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	93	0−1
Far Cry 5	80−85	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	270−280 +13450%	2−3 −13450%
Hitman 3	115	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	233 +23200%	1−2 −23200%
Metro Exodus	139 +13800%	1−2 −13800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	266 +13200%	2−3 −13200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	152 +15100%	1−2 −15100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	203 +20200%	1−2 −20200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

127
+12600%

1−2

−12600%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	65−70	0−1
Hitman 3	83	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	220−230 +22500%	1−2 −22500%
Metro Exodus	141 +14000%	1−2 −14000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	153 +15200%	1−2 −15200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	70	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	57	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	50−55	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	46	0−1
Far Cry 5	50−55	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	153 +15200%	1−2 −15200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	159 +15800%	1−2 −15800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	60	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

111

0−1

This is how RTX 3090 and NVS 290 compete in popular games:

RTX 3090 is 20200% faster in 1080p
RTX 3090 is 13000% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	69.28	0.59
Recency	1 September 2020	4 October 2007
Maximum RAM amount	24 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	8 nm	80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	350 Watt	21 Watt

RTX 3090 has a 11642.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 900% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 290, on the other hand, has 1566.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3090 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce RTX 3090 is a desktop 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.