GeForce RTX 3060 vs NVS 3100M

Place in the ranking	1229	82
Place by popularity	not in top-100	4
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	69.30
Power efficiency	2.61	18.00
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	GT218	GA106
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Desktop
Release date	7 January 2010 (15 years ago)	12 January 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$329

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 cores	16	3584
Core clock speed	606 MHz	1320 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1777 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	170 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.848	199.0
Floating-point processing power	0.04698 TFLOPS	12.74 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	48
TMUs	8	112
Tensor Cores	no data	112
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	28

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 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	242 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 12-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 type	GDDR3	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	12 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	790 MHz	1875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.64 GB/s	360.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.7
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
CUDA	1.2	8.6

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.

NVS 3100M 0.53

RTX 3060 44.44
+8285%

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 3100M 204

RTX 3060 17085
+8275%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

NVS 3100M 1121

RTX 3060 79706
+7013%

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	1−2 −11900%	120 +11900%
1440p	0−1	70
4K	0−1	49

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.74
1440p	no data	4.70
4K	no data	6.71

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1100%	95−100 +1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3850%	79 +3850%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1100%	95−100 +1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3750%	77 +3750%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −3667%	226 +3667%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1600%	85−90 +1600%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1100%	95−100 +1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3500%	72 +3500%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1400%	105 +1400%
Fortnite	0−1	180−190
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −2900%	180 +2900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2513%	200−210 +2513%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −1600%	85−90 +1600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −3140%	160−170 +3140%
World of Tanks	16−18 −1644%	270−280 +1644%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 −1100%	95−100 +1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2900%	60 +2900%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1371%	100−110 +1371%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −2467%	154 +2467%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2513%	200−210 +2513%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −5733%	170−180 +5733%
World of Tanks	1−2 −28000%	280−290 +28000%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −422%	45−50 +422%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1750%	37 +1750%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −3475%	140−150 +3475%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 −3950%	80−85 +3950%
Valorant	5−6 −2860%	140−150 +2860%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −447%	82 +447%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −447%	82 +447%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −14600%	140−150 +14600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −447%	82 +447%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	50−55
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1600%	17 +1600%
Dota 2	14−16 −667%	115 +667%
Valorant	1−2 −7800%	75−80 +7800%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring

119

+0%

119

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	120 +0%	120 +0%
Valorant	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Dota 2	146 +0%	146 +0%
Elden Ring	149 +0%	149 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	141 +0%	141 +0%
Metro Exodus	87 +0%	87 +0%
Valorant	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Dota 2	147 +0%	147 +0%
Valorant	180−190 +0%	180−190 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	81 +0%	81 +0%
Elden Ring	85 +0%	85 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	81 +0%	81 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	115 +0%	115 +0%
Metro Exodus	89 +0%	89 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Elden Ring	44 +0%	44 +0%
Metro Exodus	32 +0%	32 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Far Cry 5	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Fortnite	65−70 +0%	65−70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	67 +0%	67 +0%

This is how NVS 3100M and RTX 3060 compete in popular games:

RTX 3060 is 11900% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3060 is 28000% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 3060 is ahead in 33 tests (54%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (46%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.53	44.44
Recency	7 January 2010	12 January 2021
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	12 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	170 Watt

NVS 3100M has 1114.3% lower power consumption.

RTX 3060, on the other hand, has a 8284.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3060 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 3060 is a desktop one.

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