NVS 510 vs Radeon R5 M255
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M255 with NVS 510, including specs and performance data.
NVS 510 outperforms R5 M255 by a substantial 31% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 1016 | 923 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.08 |
Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | Kepler (2012−2018) |
GPU code name | Topaz Pro / Sun | GK107 |
Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
Release date | 1 May 2014 (10 years ago) | 23 October 2012 (11 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 320 | 192 |
Compute units | 5 | no data |
Core clock speed | 940 MHz | 797 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 1,270 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 35 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 22.56 | 12.75 |
Floating-point performance | 0.7219 gflops | 0.306 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).
Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
Length | no data | 160 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 | DDR3 | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1782 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | 28.51 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | 4x mini-DisplayPort |
Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
AppAcceleration | + | - |
HD3D | + | - |
PowerTune | + | - |
DualGraphics | + | - |
ZeroCore | + | - |
Switchable graphics | + | - |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 12 (11_0) |
Shader Model | 6.3 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.2 |
Vulkan | - | 1.1.126 |
Mantle | + | - |
CUDA | - | 3.0 |
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.
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 | 13
−23.1%
| 16−18
+23.1%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 5
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 9
−11.1%
|
10−11
+11.1%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 12
−16.7%
|
14−16
+16.7%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
−28.6%
|
27−30
+28.6%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 5
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 8
−25%
|
10−11
+25%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
−21.2%
|
40−45
+21.2%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
−20%
|
6−7
+20%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 7−8
−28.6%
|
9−10
+28.6%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−25%
|
5−6
+25%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how R5 M255 and NVS 510 compete in popular games:
- NVS 510 is 23% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 1.37 | 1.80 |
Recency | 1 May 2014 | 23 October 2012 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
R5 M255 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.
NVS 510, on the other hand, has a 31.4% higher aggregate performance score.
The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M255 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook card while NVS 510 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.