Radeon RX 7700 XT vs NVS 300

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 300 with Radeon RX 7700 XT, including specs and performance data.

NVS 300
2011
512 MB DDR3, 18 Watt
0.32

RX 7700 XT outperforms NVS 300 by a whopping 18134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking132543
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0171.58
Power efficiency1.2216.33
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2025)
GPU code nameGT218Navi 32
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date8 January 2011 (14 years ago)25 August 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

RX 7700 XT has 715700% 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 cores163456
Core clock speed520 MHz1435 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2544 MHz
Number of transistors260 million28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt245 Watt
Texture fill rate4.160549.5
Floating-point processing power0.03936 TFLOPS35.17 TFLOPS
ROPs496
TMUs8216
Ray Tracing Coresno data54

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 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length145 mm267 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone2x 8-pin

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB12 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit192 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2250 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s432.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 DMS-591x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.2
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.2-

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.

NVS 300 0.32
RX 7700 XT 58.35
+18134%

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.

NVS 300 122
RX 7700 XT 22480
+18326%

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 HD1−2
−18700%
188
+18700%
1440p0−1102
4K-0−157

Cost per frame, $

1080p109.00
−4464%
2.39
+4464%
1440pno data4.40
4Kno data7.88
  • RX 7700 XT has 4464% lower cost per frame in 1080p

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 265
+0%
265
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 176
+0%
176
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 193
+0%
193
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 199
+0%
199
+0%
Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 145
+0%
145
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 158
+0%
158
+0%
Far Cry 5 188
+0%
188
+0%
Fortnite 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 278
+0%
278
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 119
+0%
119
+0%
Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 121
+0%
121
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 132
+0%
132
+0%
Far Cry 5 181
+0%
181
+0%
Fortnite 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 272
+0%
272
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 166
+0%
166
+0%
Metro Exodus 152
+0%
152
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 295
+0%
295
+0%
Valorant 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110
+0%
110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 122
+0%
122
+0%
Far Cry 5 167
+0%
167
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 231
+0%
231
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 168
+0%
168
+0%
Valorant 290−300
+0%
290−300
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 350−400
+0%
350−400
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 105
+0%
105
+0%
Metro Exodus 90
+0%
90
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 80
+0%
80
+0%
Far Cry 5 157
+0%
157
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 197
+0%
197
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 120
+0%
120
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 112
+0%
112
+0%
Metro Exodus 57
+0%
57
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 89
+0%
89
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16
+0%
16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 36
+0%
36
+0%
Far Cry 5 82
+0%
82
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 134
+0%
134
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

This is how NVS 300 and RX 7700 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 7700 XT is 18700% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 61 test (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.32 58.35
Recency 8 January 2011 25 August 2023
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 12 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 245 Watt

NVS 300 has 1261.1% lower power consumption.

RX 7700 XT, on the other hand, has a 18134.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 300 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 300 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon RX 7700 XT is a desktop one.

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 NVS 300
NVS 300
AMD Radeon RX 7700 XT
Radeon RX 7700 XT

Other comparisons

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.


3.1 49 votes

Rate NVS 300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1823 votes

Rate Radeon RX 7700 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 300 or Radeon RX 7700 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.