Quadro RTX A6000 vs NVS 3100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 3100M with Quadro RTX A6000, including specs and performance data.

NVS 3100M
2010
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.53

RTX A6000 outperforms NVS 3100M by a whopping 10960% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking122938
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data10.80
Power efficiency2.6113.45
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT218GA102
Market segmentMobile workstationWorkstation
Release date7 January 2010 (15 years ago)5 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$4,649

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 cores1610752
Core clock speed606 MHz1410 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1800 MHz
Number of transistors260 million28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848604.8
Floating-point processing power0.04698 TFLOPS38.71 TFLOPS
ROPs4112
TMUs8336
Tensor Coresno data336
Ray Tracing Coresno data84

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
Lengthno data267 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data8-pin EPS

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB48 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit384 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s768.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs4x DisplayPort 1.4a

API 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
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.28.6

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 A6000 58.62
+10960%

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 A6000 22535
+10947%

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 A6000 89510
+7888%

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
−17400%
175
+17400%
1440p1−2
−12800%
129
+12800%
4K1−2
−11300%
114
+11300%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data26.57
1440pno data36.04
4Kno data40.78

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−1588%
130−140
+1588%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6500%
130−140
+6500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−1588%
130−140
+1588%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6500%
130−140
+6500%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−4900%
300
+4900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−2040%
100−110
+2040%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−1588%
130−140
+1588%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6500%
130−140
+6500%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−1014%
78
+1014%
Fortnite 0−1 230−240
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−4783%
293
+4783%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2588%
210−220
+2588%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
−2040%
100−110
+2040%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−3380%
170−180
+3380%
World of Tanks 16−18
−1644%
270−280
+1644%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−1588%
130−140
+1588%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−6500%
130−140
+6500%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−1571%
110−120
+1571%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−4700%
288
+4700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−2588%
210−220
+2588%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−5733%
170−180
+5733%
World of Tanks 1−2
−38400%
350−400
+38400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−700%
70−75
+700%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3500%
70−75
+3500%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−3900%
160−170
+3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−5950%
120−130
+5950%
Valorant 5−6
−4440%
220−230
+4440%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
−933%
155
+933%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−933%
155
+933%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−20700%
200−210
+20700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−933%
155
+933%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 70−75
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−3300%
30−35
+3300%
Dota 2 14−16
−753%
128
+753%
Valorant 1−2
−12600%
120−130
+12600%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 66
+0%
66
+0%
Valorant 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Dota 2 132
+0%
132
+0%
Elden Ring 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 128
+0%
128
+0%
Metro Exodus 78
+0%
78
+0%
Valorant 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Dota 2 131
+0%
131
+0%
Valorant 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 96
+0%
96
+0%
Elden Ring 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 96
+0%
96
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 247
+0%
247
+0%
Metro Exodus 63
+0%
63
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Elden Ring 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 70
+0%
70
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Far Cry 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Fortnite 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 149
+0%
149
+0%

This is how NVS 3100M and RTX A6000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A6000 is 17400% faster in 1080p
  • RTX A6000 is 12800% faster in 1440p
  • RTX A6000 is 11300% faster in 4K

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

  • in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A6000 is 38400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX A6000 is ahead in 33 tests (54%)
  • there's a draw in 28 tests (46%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 58.62
Recency 7 January 2010 5 October 2020
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 48 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 300 Watt

NVS 3100M has 2042.9% lower power consumption.

RTX A6000, on the other hand, has a 10960.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 9500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX A6000 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation card while Quadro RTX A6000 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 NVS 3100M
NVS 3100M
NVIDIA Quadro RTX A6000
Quadro RTX A6000

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.


3.1 134 votes

Rate NVS 3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 479 votes

Rate Quadro RTX A6000 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.