NVS 510 vs Quadro FX 4700 X2

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.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The NVS 510 is positioned at rank 321 and the Quadro FX 4700 X2 is on rank 401, so the NVS 510 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar NVS 510

#306

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

9783%

#321

NVS 510

MSRP: $449|Avg: $15

100%

#322

GRID M60-1Q

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $50

98%

#323

GRID K280Q

MSRP: $2000|Avg: $50

94%

#324

FirePro M2000

MSRP: $300|Avg: $50

94%

#325

Tesla K20c

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $500

92%

#326

GRID M6-1Q

MSRP: $1500|Avg: $100

91%

#327

Quadro FX 380

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

91%

#328

Tesla C2050 / C2070

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $30

91%

#329

FirePro M7740

MSRP: $500|Avg: $500

88%

#330

Quadro FX 570

MSRP: $199|Avg: $15

86%

#331

RTXA5000-24Q

MSRP: $3721|Avg: $2100

85%

#332

GRID P40-1Q

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $150

85%

#334

Tesla C2050

MSRP: $2499|Avg: $95

84%

#335

Tesla M10

MSRP: $2500|Avg: $500

84%

#336

FirePro S10000

MSRP: $3599|Avg: $500

83%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 4700 X2

#386

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

64230%

#401

Quadro FX 4700 X2

MSRP: $2999|Avg: $15

100%

#402

Quadro FX 3700

MSRP: $1599|Avg: $500

100%

#403

GRID M10-0B

MSRP: $4000|Avg: $1000

96%

#404

Quadro FX 4600

MSRP: $1999|Avg: $50

87%

#406

GRID K340

MSRP: $3299|Avg: $57

87%

#407

Quadro FX 5600

MSRP: $2999|Avg: $50

78%

#409

Quadro FX 3500

MSRP: $1599|Avg: $1599

74%

#410

Quadro FX 1400

MSRP: $799|Avg: $30

70%

#411

GRID K1

MSRP: $4140|Avg: $120

70%

#413

GRID P4-1Q

MSRP: $5890|Avg: $185

52%

#414

GRID RTX6000-2Q

MSRP: $6300|Avg: $1500

43%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The NVS 510 is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The NVS 510 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 4700 X2 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The NVS 510 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.6% higher G3D Mark score. However, the Quadro FX 4700 X2 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

Insight	NVS 510	Quadro FX 4700 X2
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+0.6%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.6%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	❌ Less VRAM capacity	✅ More VRAM (+100%)
Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt	⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	—

💎 Value Proposition

The NVS 510 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the NVS 510 holds the technical lead. Priced at $15 (vs $15), it costs 0% less, resulting in a 0.6% higher cost efficiency score.

Insight	NVS 510	Quadro FX 4700 X2
Cost Efficiency	✅Better overall value (+0.6%)	❌Lower cost efficiency
Upfront Cost	Equivalent pricing	Equivalent pricing

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

NVS 510 Benchmark Check

Quadro FX 4700 X2 Benchmark Check

Loading...

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of NVS 510 and Quadro FX 4700 X2

NVS 510

The NVS 510 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 680 points.

Quadro FX 4700 X2

The Quadro FX 4700 X2 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 602 MHz. It has 192 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 676 points. Launch price was $1,799.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The NVS 510 scores 680 and the Quadro FX 4700 X2 reaches 676 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.6% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The NVS 510 is built on Maxwell while the Quadro FX 4700 X2 uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 512 (NVS 510) vs 192 (Quadro FX 4700 X2). Raw compute: 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 510) vs 0.4623 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 4700 X2).

Feature	NVS 510	Quadro FX 4700 X2
G3D Mark Score	680	676
Architecture	Maxwell	Tesla 2.0
Process Node	28 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	512 ×2+167%	192
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.058 TFLOPS ×2+129%	0.4623 TFLOPS
ROPs	16 ×2	24+50%
TMUs	32 ×2	64+100%
L2 Cache	1 MB+426%	0.19 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	NVS 510	Quadro FX 4700 X2
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The NVS 510 comes with 2 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 4700 X2 has 4 GB. The Quadro FX 4700 X2 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (NVS 510) vs 0.19 MB (Quadro FX 4700 X2) — the NVS 510 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	NVS 510	Quadro FX 4700 X2
VRAM Capacity	2 GB	4 GB+100%
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+426%	0.19 MB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The NVS 510 draws 68W versus the Quadro FX 4700 X2's 150W — a 75.2% difference. The NVS 510 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (NVS 510) vs 350W (Quadro FX 4700 X2). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered.

Feature	NVS 510	Quadro FX 4700 X2
TDP	68W-55%	150W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	PCIe-powered
Length	160mm	—
Height	69mm	—
Slots	1	—
Temp (Load)	65°C	—
Perf/Watt	10.0+122%	4.5

💰

Value Analysis

The NVS 510 launched at $449 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the Quadro FX 4700 X2 launched at $2999 and now averages $15. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 45.3 (NVS 510) vs 45.1 (Quadro FX 4700 X2) — the NVS 510 offers 0.4% better value. The NVS 510 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2008).