Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce 315M

Place in the ranking	1327	530
Place by popularity	not in top-100	39
Power efficiency	no data	11.56
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GT218	Cezanne
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	5 January 2011 (13 years ago)	13 April 2021 (3 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 cores	16	448
Core clock speed	606 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	260 million	9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.848	53.20
Floating-point processing power	0.03878 TFLOPS	1.702 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	73	no data
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	8	28

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	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	Up to 512 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	System Shared
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	no data
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 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 compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	+	-

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 HD	0−1	22
1440p	1−2 −2700%	28 +2700%
4K	0−1	20

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−2150%

45−50
+2150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Hitman 3	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −2275%	190−200 +2275%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −2221%	650−700 +2221%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Hitman 3	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −2275%	190−200 +2275%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −2344%	220−230 +2344%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −2221%	650−700 +2221%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −2233%	70−75 +2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%
Hitman 3	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −2275%	190−200 +2275%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −2275%	95−100 +2275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −2344%	220−230 +2344%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −2221%	650−700 +2221%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 −2233%	140−150 +2233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −2150%	45−50 +2150%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−2150%

45−50
+2150%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −2300%	24−27 +2300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−2150%

45−50
+2150%

This is how GeForce 315M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:

Vega 7 is 2700% faster in 1440p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.30	7.46
Recency	5 January 2011	13 April 2021
Chip lithography	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	45 Watt

GeForce 315M has 221.4% lower power consumption.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 2386.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.