Radeon RX Vega 7 vs Quadro NVS 290

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro NVS 290 with Radeon RX Vega 7, including specs and performance data.

NVS 290
2007
256 MB DDR2, 21 Watt
0.59

RX Vega 7 outperforms NVS 290 by a whopping 1154% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking1167503
Place by popularitynot in top-10010
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data10.89
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Vega (2017−2021)
GPU code nameG86Vega Raven Ridge
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date4 October 2007 (16 years ago)7 January 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data
Current price$68 (0.5x MSRP)$387

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 290 and RX Vega 7 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores16448
Core clock speed459 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1800 MHz
Number of transistors210 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology80 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)21 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate3.672no data
Floating-point performance29.376 gflopsno data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Quadro NVS 290 and Radeon RX Vega 7 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

InterfacePCIe 1.0 x16no data
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 typeDDR2no data
Maximum RAM amount256 MBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth6.4 GB/sno data
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 data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_1
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/Ano data
CUDA1.1no data

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 HD1−2
−2200%
23
+2200%
1440p2−3
−1750%
37
+1750%
4K1−2
−1400%
15
+1400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1700%
18
+1700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2000%
21
+2000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1800%
19
+1800%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−2100%
21−24
+2100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−1300%
14
+1300%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1750%
37
+1750%
Hitman 3 1−2
−1300%
14
+1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−1267%
41
+1267%
Metro Exodus 2−3
−1250%
27
+1250%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1250%
27
+1250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
−1350%
29
+1350%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1600%
17
+1600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−1400%
15
+1400%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−2100%
21−24
+2100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1700%
18
+1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 10
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1700%
35−40
+1700%
Hitman 3 0−1 7
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
−1360%
73
+1360%
Metro Exodus 1−2
−1900%
20
+1900%
Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1900%
20
+1900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
−2300%
24
+2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−1800%
19
+1800%
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
−1233%
80
+1233%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1400%
14−16
+1400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 9−10
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 1−2
−1400%
14−16
+1400%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 9
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−1250%
27
+1250%
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
−2100%
22
+2100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
−2000%
21
+2000%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−1200%
13
+1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−1350%
27−30
+1350%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1700%
18
+1700%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−1300%
14−16
+1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 10−12

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 7−8
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 2−3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 9−10
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 3−4
Far Cry 5 0−1 10−12
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%
Hitman 3 0−1 10−12
Horizon Zero Dawn 1−2
−1500%
16−18
+1500%
Metro Exodus 0−1 8−9
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 6−7
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 7−8
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 3−4

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 1−2
−1200%
12−14
+1200%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 6−7
Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 5−6
Hitman 3 0−1 4−5
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 8−9
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 3−4
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 4−5

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 4−5
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 3−4
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Far Cry 5 0−1 4−5
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 8−9
Horizon Zero Dawn 0−1 8−9
Metro Exodus 0−1 8−9
Watch Dogs: Legion 0−1 2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 7−8

This is how NVS 290 and RX Vega 7 compete in popular games:

  • RX Vega 7 is 2200% faster in 1080p
  • RX Vega 7 is 1750% faster in 1440p
  • RX Vega 7 is 1400% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.59 7.40
Recency 4 October 2007 7 January 2020
Chip lithography 80 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 21 Watt 15 Watt

The Radeon RX Vega 7 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 Radeon RX Vega 7 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
AMD Radeon RX Vega 7
Radeon RX Vega 7

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
3.8 4585 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 7 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.