Quadro NVS 5100M vs Quadro FX 2800M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS
#ad 
Buy on Amazon

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 2800M and Quadro NVS 5100M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 2800M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.08
+16.1%

FX 2800M outperforms NVS 5100M by a moderate 16% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10821119
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.001.84
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GT2xx (2010)
GPU code nameG92N10P-NS
Market segmentMobile workstationMobile workstation
Release date1 December 2009 (14 years ago)7 January 2010 (14 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 cores9648
Core clock speed600 MHz550 MHz
Number of transistors754 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate28.80no data
Floating-point processing power0.288 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs48no data

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)no data

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 amount1 GB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth64 GB/sno data
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 data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)10.1
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

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.

FX 2800M 1.08
+16.1%
NVS 5100M 0.93

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.

FX 2800M 5783
+120%
NVS 5100M 2634

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 HD31
+29.2%
24−27
−29.2%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.2%
30−35
−3.2%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.2%
30−35
−3.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+3.2%
30−35
−3.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FX 2800M and NVS 5100M compete in popular games:

  • FX 2800M is 29% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FX 2800M is 67% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • FX 2800M is ahead in 13 tests (34%)
  • there's a draw in 25 tests (66%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.08 0.93
Recency 1 December 2009 7 January 2010
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 35 Watt

FX 2800M has a 16.1% higher aggregate performance score.

NVS 5100M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 month, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 114.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 2800M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 5100M 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 FX 2800M
Quadro FX 2800M
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 5100M
Quadro NVS 5100M

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 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 2800M on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Quadro NVS 5100M 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.