GRID K260Q vs GeForce 315M

Place in the ranking	1401	588
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.40
Power efficiency	1.48	2.41
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GT218	GK104
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	5 January 2011 (14 years ago)	28 June 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$937

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores	16	1536
Core clock speed	606 MHz	745 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.848	95.36
Floating-point processing power	0.03878 TFLOPS	2.289 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	73	no data
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	8	128
L1 Cache	no data	128 KB
L2 Cache	32 KB	512 KB

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	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Width	no data	IGP

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 512 MB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	160.0 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors	DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management

8.0

no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	+	3.0

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

GeForce 315M 0.27

GRID K260Q 7.05
+2511%

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.

GeForce 315M 114
Samples: 351

GRID K260Q 2949
+2487%

Samples: 4

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077

1−2

−2300%

24−27
+2300%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2300%	24−27 +2300%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2400%	75−80 +2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2471%	180−190 +2471%
Valorant	24−27 −2500%	650−700 +2500%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	12−14 −2208%	300−310 +2208%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2300%	24−27 +2300%
Dota 2	9−10 −2456%	230−240 +2456%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2400%	75−80 +2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2471%	180−190 +2471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −2500%	130−140 +2500%
Valorant	24−27 −2500%	650−700 +2500%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2300%	24−27 +2300%
Dota 2	9−10 −2456%	230−240 +2456%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −2400%	75−80 +2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −2471%	180−190 +2471%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −2500%	130−140 +2500%
Valorant	24−27 −2500%	650−700 +2500%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −2400%	75−80 +2400%

1440p
Ultra

Escape from Tarkov	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −2300%	24−27 +2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2300%	24−27 +2300%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −2400%	350−400 +2400%
Valorant	2−3 −2400%	50−55 +2400%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

1−2

−2300%

24−27
+2300%

4K
Epic

Fortnite

2−3

−2400%

50−55
+2400%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.27	7.05
Recency	5 January 2011	28 June 2013
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	225 Watt

GeForce 315M has 1507.1% lower power consumption.

GRID K260Q, on the other hand, has a 2511.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The GRID K260Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 315M is a notebook graphics card while GRID K260Q is a workstation one.