Tesla T4 vs Quadro NVS 510M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 510M with Tesla T4, including specs and performance data.
Tesla T4 outperforms NVS 510M by a whopping 4427% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1204 | 198 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Curie (2003−2013) | Turing (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | G71 | TU104 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 21 August 2006 (18 years ago) | 13 September 2018 (5 years ago) |
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 cores | no data | 2560 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 585 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1590 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 278 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.80 | 254.4 |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 8.141 gflops |
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).
| Interface | PCIe 1.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 168 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1200 MHz | 10000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 19.2 GB/s | 320.0 GB/s |
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 outputs | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 9.0c (9_3) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 3.0 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | - | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.62 | 28.07 |
| Recency | 21 August 2006 | 13 September 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 256 MB | 16 GB |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 70 Watt |
NVS 510M has 100% lower power consumption.
Tesla T4, on the other hand, has a 4427.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.
The Tesla T4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 510M in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro NVS 510M is a mobile workstation card while Tesla T4 is a 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.
