NVS 510 vs Quadro CX

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro CX and NVS 510, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Quadro CX
2008
1536 MB GDDR3, 150 Watt
2.46
+37.4%

CX outperforms NVS 510 by a substantial 37% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking836922
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.040.10
Power efficiency1.123.51
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code nameGT200BGK107
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date11 November 2008 (16 years ago)23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,999 $449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 510 has 150% better value for money than Quadro CX.

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 cores192192
Core clock speed602 MHz797 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate38.5312.75
Floating-point processing power0.4623 TFLOPS0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs2416
TMUs6416

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 2.0 x16
Length267 mm160 mm
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1536 MB2 GB
Memory bus width384 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz891 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s28.51 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 Connectors1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x S-Video4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.1.126
CUDA1.33.0

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.

Quadro CX 2.46
+37.4%
NVS 510 1.79

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.

Quadro CX 947
+37%
NVS 510 691

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 2.46 1.79
Recency 11 November 2008 23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount 1536 MB 2 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 35 Watt

Quadro CX has a 37.4% higher aggregate performance score.

NVS 510, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 33.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 96.4% more advanced lithography process, and 328.6% lower power consumption.

The Quadro CX 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 Quadro CX
Quadro CX
NVIDIA NVS 510
NVS 510

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.


5 1 vote

Rate Quadro CX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 60 votes

Rate NVS 510 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.