GeForce 8300 vs 315M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 315M with GeForce 8300, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 315M
2011
Up to 512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.27
+12.5%

315M outperforms 8300 by a moderate 13% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking14001426
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.480.46
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGT218C78
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (14 years ago)6 May 2008 (17 years 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 cores1616
Core clock speed606 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors260 million210 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm80 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt40 Watt
Texture fill rate4.8484.000
Floating-point processing power0.03878 TFLOPS0.048 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs44
TMUs88
L2 Cache32 KBno data

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 supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCI
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amountUp to 512 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.0
OpenGL4.13.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

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
+12.5%
GeForce 8300 0.24

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 115
+13.9%
Samples: 353
GeForce 8300 101
Samples: 62

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 0−1

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Valorant 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+30%
10−11
−30%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Valorant 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Dota 2 9−10
+12.5%
8−9
−12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Valorant 24−27
+19%
21−24
−19%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

1440p
Ultra

Escape from Tarkov 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+16.7%
12−14
−16.7%
Valorant 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2 0−1

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 0.24
Recency 5 January 2011 6 May 2008
Chip lithography 40 nm 80 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 40 Watt

GeForce 315M has a 12.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 185.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 315M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8300 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 315M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 8300 is a desktop one.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 315M
GeForce 315M
NVIDIA GeForce 8300
GeForce 8300

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.


2.9 172 votes

Rate GeForce 315M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.4 13 votes

Rate GeForce 8300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 315M or GeForce 8300, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.