RTX A4000 vs NVS 510

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 510 and RTX A4000, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

NVS 510
2012
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.79

RTX A4000 outperforms NVS 510 by a whopping 2713% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking91856
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.07no data
Power efficiency3.5525.00
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGK107GA104
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date23 October 2012 (12 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 no data

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 cores1926144
Core clock speed797 MHz735 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1560 MHz
Number of transistors1,270 million17,400 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt140 Watt
Texture fill rate12.75299.5
Floating-point processing power0.306 TFLOPS19.17 TFLOPS
ROPs1696
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 mm241 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-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 amount2 GB16 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed891 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth28.51 GB/s448.0 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 DisplayPort 1.4a

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.7
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.1.1261.3
CUDA3.08.6

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 510 1.79
RTX A4000 50.36
+2713%

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 510 692
RTX A4000 19428
+2708%

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 1706
RTX A4000 123297
+7127%

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 1868
RTX A4000 111739
+5882%

GeekBench 5 CUDA

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 CUDA API by NVIDIA.

NVS 510 1282
RTX A4000 124547
+9615%

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 1.79 50.36
Recency 23 October 2012 12 April 2021
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 16 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 140 Watt

NVS 510 has 300% lower power consumption.

RTX A4000, on the other hand, has a 2713.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 250% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A4000 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 A4000
RTX A4000

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.


2.9 60 votes

Rate NVS 510 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 630 votes

Rate RTX A4000 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.