NVS 315 vs GeForce GT 720M

Place in the ranking	1053	1122
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.03
Power efficiency	2.49	3.27
Architecture	Kepler 2.0 (2013−2015)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GK208	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	25 December 2013 (10 years ago)	10 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores	192	48
Core clock speed	719 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	758 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	915 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	19 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.13	4.184
Floating-point processing power	0.2911 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	8

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	PCI Express 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	145 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
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	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Standard memory configuration	DDR3	no data
Memory bus width	64 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	12.8 GB/s	14 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

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	No outputs	1x DMS-59
eDP 1.2 signal support	Up to 2560x1600	no data
LVDS signal support	Up to 1920x1200	no data
VGA аnalog display support	Up to 2048x1536	no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support	Up to 2560x1600	no data
HDMI	+	-
HDCP content protection	+	-
7.1 channel HD audio on HDMI	+	-
TrueHD and DTS-HD audio bitstreaming	+	-

Supported technologies

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

Blu-Ray 3D Support	+	-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder	+	-
Optimus	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 API	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.1.126	N/A
CUDA	+	2.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GT 720M 1.19
+32.2%

NVS 315 0.90

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.

GT 720M 460
+32.9%

NVS 315 346

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

GT 720M 2613
+196%

NVS 315 882

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

14
+40%

10−12

−40%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

15.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4
+50%

2−3

−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	30 +42.9%	21−24 −42.9%
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +33.3%	12−14 −33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +50%	2−3 −50%
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +50%	4−5 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +40%	10−11 −40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−12 +37.5%	8−9 −37.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 +33.3%	24−27 −33.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
+100%

1−2

−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+33.3%

3−4

−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
+100%

1−2

−100%

This is how GT 720M and NVS 315 compete in popular games:

GT 720M is 40% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.19	0.90
Recency	25 December 2013	10 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	33 Watt	19 Watt

GT 720M has a 32.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 315, on the other hand, has 73.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 720M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 720M is a notebook card while NVS 315 is a workstation one.

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