Arc A550M vs Quadro NVS 290

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 290 with Arc A550M, including specs and performance data.

NVS 290
2007
256 MB DDR2, 21 Watt
0.59

Arc A550M outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 4054% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1200223
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.9428.28
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameG86DG2-512
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date4 October 2007 (17 years ago)2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 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 cores162048
Core clock speed459 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2050 MHz
Number of transistors210 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt60 Watt
Texture fill rate3.672262.4
Floating-point processing power0.02938 TFLOPS8.397 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8128
Tensor Coresno data256
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 1.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDR2GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount256 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s224.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno data-

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 DMS-59Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.06.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA1.1-

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Metro Exodus 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Hitman 3 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Hitman 3 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Hitman 3 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.59 24.51
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 60 Watt

NVS 290 has 185.7% lower power consumption.

Arc A550M, on the other hand, has a 4054.2% higher aggregate performance score, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A550M is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 290 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro NVS 290 is a workstation card while Arc A550M is a notebook 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 NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290
Intel Arc A550M
Arc A550M

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.


3.4 21 vote

Rate Quadro NVS 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 74 votes

Rate Arc A550M 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.