Quadro NVS 210S vs Radeon R9 M295X

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M295X with Quadro NVS 210S, including specs and performance data.

R9 M295X
2014
0 MB Not Listed, 250 Watt
12.79
+21217%

R9 M295X outperforms NVS 210S by a whopping 21217% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3871478
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.690.39
ArchitectureGCN 3.0 (2014−2019)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameAmethystC51
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date23 November 2014 (10 years ago)22 December 2003 (21 year 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 cores2048no data
Core clock speed723 MHz425 MHz
Number of transistors5,000 million75 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt11 Watt
Texture fill rate92.540.85
Floating-point processing power2.961 TFLOPSno data
ROPs321
TMUs1282

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCI
Widthno dataIGP
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 typeNot ListedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amount0 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus widthNot ListedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth160.0 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXNot Listed9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model6.33.0
OpenGL4.42.1
OpenCLNot ListedN/A
Vulkan-N/A
Mantle+-

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.

R9 M295X 12.79
+21217%
NVS 210S 0.06

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.

R9 M295X 5150
+22291%
NVS 210S 23

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 HD47-0−1
4K29-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 35−40 0−1
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35 0−1
Valorant 50−55 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Dota 2 45−50 0−1
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Fortnite 75−80 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 35−40 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 45−50 0−1
Metro Exodus 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 30−35 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 39 0−1
Valorant 50−55 0−1
World of Tanks 170−180 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 40−45 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 24−27 0−1
Dota 2 45−50 0−1
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 35−40 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 95−100 0−1
Valorant 50−55 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 20−22 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
World of Tanks 90−95 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 0−1
Far Cry 5 30−35 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 21−24 0−1
Metro Exodus 27−30 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20 0−1
Valorant 30−35 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Dota 2 24−27 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27 0−1
Metro Exodus 9−10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 35−40 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 24−27 0−1
Far Cry 5 16−18 0−1
Fortnite 14−16 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 10−11 0−1
Valorant 14−16 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.79 0.06
Recency 23 November 2014 22 December 2003
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 11 Watt

R9 M295X has a 21216.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 210S, on the other hand, has 2172.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R9 M295X is our recommended choice as it beats the Quadro NVS 210S in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R9 M295X is a notebook card while Quadro NVS 210S is a 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.


AMD Radeon R9 M295X
Radeon R9 M295X
NVIDIA Quadro NVS 210S
Quadro NVS 210S

Other comparisons

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.


4.6 17 votes

Rate Radeon R9 M295X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 12 votes

Rate Quadro NVS 210S 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.