RTX A2000 Mobile vs NVS 3100M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 3100M and RTX A2000 Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 3100M
2010
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.53

RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms NVS 3100M by a whopping 4755% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1224209
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.6418.88
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT218GA106
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date7 January 2010 (14 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)

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 cores162560
Core clock speed606 MHz893 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1358 MHz
Number of transistors260 million13,250 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt95 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848108.6
Floating-point processing power0.04698 TFLOPS6.953 TFLOPS
ROPs448
TMUs880
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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).

Laptop sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16

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 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed790 MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/s176.0 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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
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 A2000 Mobile 25.73
+4755%

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 A2000 Mobile 9926
+4766%

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 A2000 Mobile 63738
+5588%

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
−7700%
78
+7700%
1440p0−142
4K0−142

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2367%
74
+2367%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1300%
55−60
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1633%
50−55
+1633%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1967%
62
+1967%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−6600%
65−70
+6600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−940%
50−55
+940%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1070%
110−120
+1070%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1350%
85−90
+1350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−247%
100−110
+247%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1300%
55−60
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1633%
50−55
+1633%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1567%
50
+1567%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−6600%
65−70
+6600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−940%
50−55
+940%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1070%
110−120
+1070%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1700%
108
+1700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−450%
55−60
+450%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−247%
100−110
+247%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−1300%
55−60
+1300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−1633%
50−55
+1633%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−1267%
41
+1267%
Hitman 3 5−6
−940%
50−55
+940%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−1070%
110−120
+1070%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−1467%
94
+1467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−400%
50
+400%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
+3.4%
29
−3.4%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−3800%
35−40
+3800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 27−30
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2400%
25
+2400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
Hitman 3 6−7
−417%
30−35
+417%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−1667%
50−55
+1667%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−14200%
140−150
+14200%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−1333%
40−45
+1333%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1500%
16−18
+1500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 14−16

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1000%
21−24
+1000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55
+0%
55
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 39
+0%
39
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 32
+0%
32
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+0%
27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 49
+0%
49
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 63
+0%
63
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35
+0%
35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

This is how NVS 3100M and RTX A2000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 Mobile is 7700% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the NVS 3100M is 3% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX A2000 Mobile is 14200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • NVS 3100M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • RTX A2000 Mobile is ahead in 34 tests (49%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.53 25.73
Recency 7 January 2010 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 95 Watt

NVS 3100M has 578.6% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4754.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 3100M in performance tests.


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 RTX A2000 Mobile
RTX A2000 Mobile

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.


3.1 128 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 92 votes

Rate RTX A2000 Mobile 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.