NVS 315 vs GeForce GTX 960M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 960M with NVS 315, including specs and performance data.

GTX 960M
2015
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
8.75
+872%

GTX 960M outperforms NVS 315 by a whopping 872% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4851119
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
Power efficiency8.103.29
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2017)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGM107GF119
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date13 March 2015 (9 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 cores64048
Core clock speed1096 MHz523 MHz
Boost clock speed1176 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,870 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt19 Watt
Texture fill rate47.044.184
Floating-point processing power1.505 TFLOPS0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs408

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 sizemedium sizedno data
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz875 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s14 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DMS-59
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-
Ansel+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/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.

GTX 960M 8.75
+872%
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.

GTX 960M 3377
+876%
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.

GTX 960M 10958
+1142%
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:

900p95
+956%
9−10
−956%
Full HD34
+1033%
3−4
−1033%
1440p14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
4K13
+1200%
1−2
−1200%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data53.00
1440pno data159.00
4Kno data159.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Battlefield 5 30
+900%
3−4
−900%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry 5 28
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 31
+933%
3−4
−933%
Forza Horizon 4 84
+950%
8−9
−950%
Hitman 3 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
Metro Exodus 31
+933%
3−4
−933%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 48
+1100%
4−5
−1100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+883%
6−7
−883%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 31
+933%
3−4
−933%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Battlefield 5 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry 5 24
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Far Cry New Dawn 23
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Forza Horizon 4 71
+914%
7−8
−914%
Hitman 3 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
Metro Exodus 26
+1200%
2−3
−1200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 73
+943%
7−8
−943%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+883%
6−7
−883%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry 5 18
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Forza Horizon 4 25
+1150%
2−3
−1150%
Hitman 3 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 50−55
+900%
5−6
−900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 27−30
+1350%
2−3
−1350%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+883%
6−7
−883%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Far Cry New Dawn 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Far Cry 5 10
+900%
1−2
−900%
Forza Horizon 4 45
+1025%
4−5
−1025%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+1700%
1−2
−1700%
Metro Exodus 15
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 10−11
+900%
1−2
−900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 55−60
+1020%
5−6
−1020%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 6 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 35−40
+1067%
3−4
−1067%
Metro Exodus 8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+900%
1−2
−900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+1000%
1−2
−1000%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 5−6 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1

This is how GTX 960M and NVS 315 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 960M is 956% faster in 900p
  • GTX 960M is 1033% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 960M is 1300% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 960M is 1200% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.75 0.90
Recency 13 March 2015 10 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 19 Watt

GTX 960M has a 872.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 315, on the other hand, has 294.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 960M 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.

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 GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M
NVIDIA NVS 315
NVS 315

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.7 1029 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 960M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 172 votes

Rate NVS 315 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.