Radeon RX 6600 XT vs GeForce 315M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 315M with Radeon RX 6600 XT, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 315M
2011
Up to 512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.29

RX 6600 XT outperforms 315M by a whopping 14348% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking133892
Place by popularitynot in top-10075
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data62.16
Power efficiency1.4518.39
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT218Navi 23
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (14 years ago)30 July 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$379

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

no data

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 cores162048
Core clock speed606 MHz1968 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2589 MHz
Number of transistors260 million11,060 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt160 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848331.4
Floating-point processing power0.03878 TFLOPS10.6 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs464
TMUs8128
Ray Tracing Coresno data32

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 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Lengthno data190 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s256.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort
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 compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12.0 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL4.14.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA+-

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.

GeForce 315M 0.29
RX 6600 XT 41.90
+14348%

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
RX 6600 XT 16488
+14237%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce 315M 1109
RX 6600 XT 88163
+7853%

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 HD0−1132
1440p0−175
4K-0−143

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.87
1440pno data5.05
4Kno data8.81

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−1614%
120
+1614%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7800%
79
+7800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−1214%
90−95
+1214%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7700%
78
+7700%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−5000%
150−160
+5000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−2114%
150−160
+2114%
Valorant 24−27
−781%
220−230
+781%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
−5900%
120−130
+5900%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−1214%
90−95
+1214%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−2038%
270−280
+2038%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7500%
76
+7500%
Dota 2 10−11
−1600%
170
+1600%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−5000%
150−160
+5000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−2114%
150−160
+2114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−4300%
176
+4300%
Valorant 24−27
−781%
220−230
+781%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
−857%
67
+857%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6800%
69
+6800%
Dota 2 10−11
−1100%
120
+1100%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−5000%
150−160
+5000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−2114%
150−160
+2114%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−2375%
99
+2375%
Valorant 24−27
−781%
220−230
+781%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−8650%
170−180
+8650%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 40
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−11300%
110−120
+11300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−7500%
75−80
+7500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 100−110

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 30−35
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−327%
64
+327%
Valorant 2−3
−11950%
240−250
+11950%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−5000%
51
+5000%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−2500%
50−55
+2500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Far Cry 5 151
+0%
151
+0%
Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 123
+0%
123
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Far Cry 5 141
+0%
141
+0%
Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 115
+0%
115
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 135
+0%
135
+0%
Metro Exodus 95
+0%
95
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Far Cry 5 133
+0%
133
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 97
+0%
97
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 68
+0%
68
+0%
Metro Exodus 56
+0%
56
+0%
Valorant 260−270
+0%
260−270
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 105
+0%
105
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 71
+0%
71
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 34
+0%
34
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 54
+0%
54
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 8
+0%
8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14
+0%
14
+0%
Dota 2 86
+0%
86
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 36
+0%
36
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6600 XT is 11950% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6600 XT is ahead in 33 tests (52%)
  • there's a draw in 31 test (48%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.29 41.90
Recency 5 January 2011 30 July 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 160 Watt

GeForce 315M has 1042.9% lower power consumption.

RX 6600 XT, on the other hand, has a 14348.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6600 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 315M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6600 XT 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
AMD Radeon RX 6600 XT
Radeon RX 6600 XT

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.


3.1 159 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 4587 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6600 XT on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 315M or Radeon RX 6600 XT, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.