GeForce FX 5900XT vs Quadro NVS 110M

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

GeForce FX 5900XT vs Quadro NVS 110M FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce FX 5900XT vs Quadro NVS 110M: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce FX 5900XT

2011

Why buy it

✅Competitive enough if your priority is price, power, or specific feature preference.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark G3D performance (40 vs 48).
❌Less VRAM, with 128 MB vs 512 MB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2011 hardware with 128 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌711.1% higher power demand at 365W vs 45W.

Quadro NVS 110M

2013

Why buy it

✅+20% higher PassMark G3D performance.
✅300% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (512 MB vs 128 MB).
✅Draws 45W instead of 365W, a 320W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌2013 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

Quadro NVS 110M is the faster gaming card right now based on the synthetic data we have. It leads by 20% in PassMark G3D (48 vs 40), which is the best performance signal available in this matchup.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce FX 5900XT is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond because it comes out ahead on the available hardware-headroom signals for this matchup.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Quadro NVS 110M makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Quadro NVS 110M is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce FX 5900XT has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce FX 5900XT vs Quadro NVS 110M Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

GeForce FX 5900XT

The GeForce FX 5900XT is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 24 2011. It features the Rankine architecture. The core clock speed is 607 MHz. It has 1024 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 365W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 40 points. Launch price was $699.

Quadro NVS 110M

The Quadro NVS 110M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 23 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 706 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 48 points. Launch price was $109.94.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce FX 5900XT scores 40 versus the Quadro NVS 110M's 48 — the Quadro NVS 110M leads by 20%. The GeForce FX 5900XT is built on Rankine while the Quadro NVS 110M uses Kepler, both on 40 nm vs 28 nm. Shader units: 1,024 (GeForce FX 5900XT) vs 384 (Quadro NVS 110M). Raw compute: 1.244 TFLOPS ×2 (GeForce FX 5900XT) vs 0.5422 TFLOPS (Quadro NVS 110M).

Feature	GeForce FX 5900XT	Quadro NVS 110M
G3D Mark Score	40	48+20%
Architecture	Rankine	Kepler
Process Node	40 nm	28 nm
Shading Units	1024 ×2+167%	384
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.244 TFLOPS ×2+129%	0.5422 TFLOPS
ROPs	48 ×2+200%	16
TMUs	64 ×2+100%	32
L1 Cache	1 MB+3233%	0.03 MB
L2 Cache	768 KB+200%	256 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce FX 5900XT gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Quadro NVS 110M leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce FX 5900XT	Quadro NVS 110M
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	Upscaling support
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce FX 5900XT has 128 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro NVS 110M carries 512 MB. Quadro NVS 110M gives you 300% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 128-bit on the GeForce FX 5900XT and 64-bit on the Quadro NVS 110M. L2 Cache: 768 KB (GeForce FX 5900XT) vs 256 KB (Quadro NVS 110M) — the GeForce FX 5900XT has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce FX 5900XT	Quadro NVS 110M
VRAM Capacity	0.125 GB	0.5 GB+300%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	128-bit+100%	64-bit
L2 Cache	768 KB+200%	256 KB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce FX 5900XT draws 365W versus the Quadro NVS 110M's 45W — a 156.1% difference. The Quadro NVS 110M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce FX 5900XT) vs 350W (Quadro NVS 110M). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	GeForce FX 5900XT	Quadro NVS 110M
TDP	365W	45W-88%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	PCIe-powered
Length	218mm	—
Slots	1	—
Perf/Watt	0.1	1.1+1000%

💰

Value Analysis

The newer card here is Quadro NVS 110M (2013 vs 2011).

Feature	GeForce FX 5900XT	Quadro NVS 110M
MSRP	$0	—
Codename	GF110	GK107
Release	March 24 2011	July 23 2013
Ranking	#555	#856

Search GeForce FX 5900XT on Amazon

Search Quadro NVS 110M on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.