NVS 310 vs Quadro FX 380

Place in the ranking	1250	1188
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.02	0.03
Power efficiency	0.84	2.27
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	G96	GF119
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	30 March 2009 (15 years ago)	26 June 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$129	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 310 has 50% better value for money than FX 380.

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 cores	16	48
Core clock speed	450 MHz	523 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	34 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	3.600	4.184
Floating-point processing power	0.0352 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	8	8

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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	198 mm	156 mm
Width	1-slot	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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 type	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	22.4 GB/s	14 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 Connectors

2x DVI

2x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.1	2.1

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 380 0.41

NVS 310 0.65
+58.5%

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 380 157

NVS 310 251
+59.9%

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	0.41	0.65
Recency	30 March 2009	26 June 2012
Maximum RAM amount	256 MB	512 MB
Chip lithography	65 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	34 Watt	20 Watt

NVS 310 has a 58.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 70% lower power consumption.

The NVS 310 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro FX 380 in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.