Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile vs Quadro NVS 290

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 290 with Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

NVS 290
2007
256 MB DDR2, 21 Watt
0.59

RTX 3000 Mobile outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 4344% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1200208
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.9422.69
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameG86TU106
Market segmentWorkstationMobile workstation
Release date4 October 2007 (17 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 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 cores162304
Core clock speed459 MHz945 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1380 MHz
Number of transistors210 million10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology80 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate3.672198.7
Floating-point processing power0.02938 TFLOPS6.359 TFLOPS
ROPs464
TMUs8144
Tensor Coresno data288
Ray Tracing Coresno data36

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16PCIe 3.0 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 MB6 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed400 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/s448.0 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-59No outputs
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

VR Readyno data+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.17.5

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.

NVS 290 0.59
RTX 3000 Mobile 26.22
+4344%

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 290 228
RTX 3000 Mobile 10116
+4337%

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 HD2−3
−4600%
94
+4600%
4K1−2
−8700%
88
+8700%

Cost per frame, $

1080p74.50no data
4K149.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 77
+0%
77
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Hitman 3 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Metro Exodus 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Hitman 3 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Metro Exodus 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 39
+0%
39
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Hitman 3 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 56
+0%
56
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 150−160
+0%
150−160
+0%
Hitman 3 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

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

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hitman 3 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how NVS 290 and RTX 3000 Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 4600% faster in 1080p
  • RTX 3000 Mobile is 8700% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.59 26.22
Recency 4 October 2007 27 May 2019
Maximum RAM amount 256 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 80 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 80 Watt

NVS 290 has 281% lower power consumption.

RTX 3000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 4344.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 566.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile 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 Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile 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 NVS 290
Quadro NVS 290
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile
Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile

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
4.1 275 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 3000 Mobile 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.