Quadro NVS 510M vs Quadro FX 3700

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700 with Quadro NVS 510M, including specs and performance data.

FX 3700
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 78 Watt
0.98
+58.1%

FX 3700 outperforms NVS 510M by an impressive 58% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11171204
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.921.30
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameG92G71
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date8 January 2008 (16 years ago)21 August 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 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 cores112no data
Core clock speed500 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors754 million278 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)78 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate28.0010.80
Floating-point processing power0.28 TFLOPSno data
ROPs1616
TMUs5624

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 1.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB256 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz600 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s19.2 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-VideoNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.03.0
OpenGL3.32.1
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.1-

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 3700 0.98
+58.1%
NVS 510M 0.62

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.

FX 3700 377
+58.4%
NVS 510M 238

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 0.98 0.62
Recency 8 January 2008 21 August 2006
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 256 MB
Chip lithography 65 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 78 Watt 35 Watt

FX 3700 has a 58.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 38.5% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 510M, on the other hand, has 122.9% lower power consumption.

The Quadro FX 3700 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 510M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3700 is a workstation card while Quadro NVS 510M is a mobile workstation one.


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 3700
Quadro FX 3700
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 510M
Quadro NVS 510M

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.


4.2 20 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 3 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 510M 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.