GeForce RTX 3090 Ti vs Quadro NVS 210S

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 210S with GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, including specs and performance data.

NVS 210S
2003
11 Watt
0.05

RTX 3090 Ti outperforms NVS 210S by a whopping 132040% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking148414
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data8.29
Power efficiency0.3611.60
ArchitectureCurie (2003−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameC51GA102
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date22 December 2003 (21 year ago)27 January 2022 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

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 coresno data10752
Core clock speed425 MHz1560 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1860 MHz
Number of transistors75 million28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)11 Watt450 Watt
Texture fill rate0.85625.0
Floating-point processing powerno data40 TFLOPS
ROPs1112
TMUs2336
Tensor Coresno data336
Ray Tracing Coresno data84

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).

InterfacePCIPCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data336 mm
WidthIGP3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 16-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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6X
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared24 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared384 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1313 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data1,008 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR-+

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 outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 1.4a
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX9.0c (9_3)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model3.06.6
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.6
DLSS-+

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.

NVS 210S 0.05
RTX 3090 Ti 66.07
+132040%

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 210S 23
RTX 3090 Ti 29524
+128265%

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 HD-0−1210
1440p-0−1142
4K-0−1101

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data9.52
1440pno data14.08
4Kno data19.79

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 219
+0%
219
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Battlefield 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 201
+0%
201
+0%
Far Cry 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 280−290
+0%
280−290
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 200
+0%
200
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 400−450
+0%
400−450
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
Battlefield 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 173
+0%
173
+0%
Dota 2 217
+0%
217
+0%
Far Cry 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 280−290
+0%
280−290
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 188
+0%
188
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 170
+0%
170
+0%
Metro Exodus 178
+0%
178
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 394
+0%
394
+0%
Valorant 400−450
+0%
400−450
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 152
+0%
152
+0%
Dota 2 195
+0%
195
+0%
Far Cry 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 280−290
+0%
280−290
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 193
+0%
193
+0%
Valorant 400−450
+0%
400−450
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 500−550
+0%
500−550
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 151
+0%
151
+0%
Metro Exodus 125
+0%
125
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 450−500
+0%
450−500
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 104
+0%
104
+0%
Far Cry 5 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 250−260
+0%
250−260
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 181
+0%
181
+0%
Metro Exodus 84
+0%
84
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 173
+0%
173
+0%
Valorant 300−350
+0%
300−350
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 53
+0%
53
+0%
Dota 2 184
+0%
184
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 210−220
+0%
210−220
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100
+0%
95−100
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.05 66.07
Recency 22 December 2003 27 January 2022
Chip lithography 90 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 11 Watt 450 Watt

NVS 210S has 3990.9% lower power consumption.

RTX 3090 Ti, on the other hand, has a 132040% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 18 years, and a 1025% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 210S in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 210S is a workstation graphics card while GeForce RTX 3090 Ti is a desktop one.

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 NVS 210S
Quadro NVS 210S
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 Ti
GeForce RTX 3090 Ti

Other comparisons

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.


2.8 12 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 210S on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 3406 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3090 Ti on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro NVS 210S or GeForce RTX 3090 Ti, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.