RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation vs NVS 510

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 510 and RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 510
2012
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.73

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 2912% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking93052
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.11no data
Power efficiency3.5353.19
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGK107AD104
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)21 March 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

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

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 cores1926144
Core clock speed797 MHz720 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1560 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million35,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate12.75299.5
Floating-point processing power0.306 TFLOPS19.17 TFLOPS
ROPs1680
TMUs16192
Tensor Coresno data192
Ray Tracing Coresno data48

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
Length160 mm168 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 amount2 GB20 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit160 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s280.0 GB/s

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 Connectors4x mini-DisplayPort4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.08.9

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 510 1.73
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation 52.10
+2912%

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 510 689
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation 20741
+2910%

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

NVS 510 1702
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation 124441
+7211%

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.

NVS 510 1852
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation 106433
+5647%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.73 52.10
Recency 23 October 2012 21 March 2023
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 20 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 70 Watt

NVS 510 has 100% lower power consumption.

RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation, on the other hand, has a 2911.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 900% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 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 510
NVS 510
NVIDIA RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation
RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation

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.


2.9 60 votes

Rate NVS 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 49 votes

Rate RTX 4000 SFF Ada Generation 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.