UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs vs GeForce 315M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 315M and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics 750 32EUs outperforms 315M by a whopping 1359% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1403 | 744 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.48 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 30 March 2021 (4 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 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03878 TFLOPS | no data |
| Gigaflops | 73 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | no data |
| TMUs | 8 | no data |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | no 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 support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 512 MB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | no data |
| 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 |
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | DirectX 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
| 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 | 1−2
−1500%
| 16
+1500%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−116%
|
50−55
+116%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−446%
|
70−75
+446%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−278%
|
34
+278%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−116%
|
50−55
+116%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−244%
|
31
+244%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−533%
|
18−20
+533%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−129%
|
16−18
+129%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−140%
|
12−14
+140%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1300%
|
350−400
+1300%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−1233%
|
40−45
+1233%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−900%
|
10−11
+900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−7.1%
|
14−16
+7.1%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−900%
|
20−22
+900%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 315M and UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs compete in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is 1500% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is 900% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs performs better in 19 tests (43%)
- there's a draw in 25 tests (57%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.27 | 3.94 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 30 March 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs has a 1359.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The UHD Graphics Xe 750 32EUs is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
