Radeon R5 M315 vs GeForce GT 650M SLI
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 650M SLI and Radeon R5 M315, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
650M SLI outperforms R5 M315 by a whopping 298% 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 | 690 | 1101 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | N13E-GE | Meso |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 March 2012 (13 years ago) | 5 May 2015 (10 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 | 768 | 384 |
| Compute units | no data | 5 |
| Core clock speed | 790 MHz | 970 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 835 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 23.28 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.745 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 128 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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2x2 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 2x 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 4000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 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 | no data | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11 | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | no data | Not Listed |
| Mantle | - | + |
| 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:
| 900p | 79
+339%
| 18−20
−339%
|
| Full HD | 50
+317%
| 12−14
−317%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+78.8%
|
30−35
−78.8%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 139
+396%
|
27−30
−396%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Fortnite | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+78.8%
|
30−35
−78.8%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+156%
|
16−18
−156%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+600%
|
2−3
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+111%
|
9−10
−111%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+78.8%
|
30−35
−78.8%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+833%
|
3−4
−833%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+414%
|
7−8
−414%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+192%
|
12−14
−192%
|
| Valorant | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3
−2450%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 24−27
+300%
|
6−7
−300%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
This is how GT 650M SLI and R5 M315 compete in popular games:
- GT 650M SLI is 339% faster in 900p
- GT 650M SLI is 317% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 650M SLI is 2450% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GT 650M SLI surpassed R5 M315 in all 46 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.66 | 1.17 |
| Recency | 22 March 2012 | 5 May 2015 |
GT 650M SLI has a 298.3% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 M315, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years.
The GeForce GT 650M SLI is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M315 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.
