GeForce RTX 2070 Super Max-Q vs Quadro NVS 5100M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 5100M with GeForce RTX 2070 Super Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
RTX 2070 Super Max-Q outperforms NVS 5100M by a whopping 3727% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1116 | 135 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.85 | 30.94 |
| Architecture | GT2xx (2010) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | N10P-NS | TU104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 2 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
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 | 48 | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 930 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1155 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 80 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 184.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 5.914 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 64 |
| TMUs | no data | 160 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 320 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 40 |
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 size | medium sized | large |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | 1375 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 352.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | no data | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | - | + |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2.140 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
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 | 2−3
−4950%
| 101
+4950%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−7000%
| 71
+7000%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−4600%
| 47
+4600%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1967%
|
60−65
+1967%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−1880%
|
99
+1880%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−3267%
|
101
+3267%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1967%
|
60−65
+1967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 127 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−6750%
|
137
+6750%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−1960%
|
103
+1960%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−1167%
|
150−160
+1167%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−10800%
|
109
+10800%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−1729%
|
120−130
+1729%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−297%
|
120−130
+297%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−1420%
|
75−80
+1420%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−2933%
|
91
+2933%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1967%
|
60−65
+1967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 108 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
−4750%
|
97
+4750%
|
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−1940%
|
102
+1940%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−1167%
|
150−160
+1167%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−9000%
|
91
+9000%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−1729%
|
120−130
+1729%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−640%
|
70−75
+640%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−297%
|
120−130
+297%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
−1140%
|
62
+1140%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
−2167%
|
68
+2167%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−1967%
|
60−65
+1967%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 76 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
−1620%
|
86
+1620%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
−767%
|
104
+767%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
−1729%
|
120−130
+1729%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
−650%
|
75
+650%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−90.3%
|
59
+90.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2
−9100%
|
92
+9100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 65−70 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−6300%
|
64
+6300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 47 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−2600%
|
27−30
+2600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−5300%
|
54
+5300%
|
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
−543%
|
45−50
+543%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
−1825%
|
75−80
+1825%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 3−4
−5933%
|
180−190
+5933%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
−2267%
|
71
+2267%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 35 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−3100%
|
32
+3100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 21−24 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 28 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−1700%
|
36
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 110−120
+0%
|
110−120
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 142
+0%
|
142
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 60
+0%
|
60
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 180−190
+0%
|
180−190
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 50
+0%
|
50
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 200−210
+0%
|
200−210
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75
+0%
|
75
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 85−90
+0%
|
85−90
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 61
+0%
|
61
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
This is how NVS 5100M and RTX 2070 Super Max-Q compete in popular games:
- RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is 4950% faster in 1080p
- RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is 7000% faster in 1440p
- RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is 4600% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is 10800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is ahead in 38 tests (60%)
- there's a draw in 25 tests (40%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.93 | 35.59 |
| Recency | 7 January 2010 | 2 April 2020 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 80 Watt |
NVS 5100M has 128.6% lower power consumption.
RTX 2070 Super Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 3726.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 2070 Super Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 5100M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 5100M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce RTX 2070 Super Max-Q 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
