GeForce 315M vs HD Graphics 4400

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared HD Graphics 4400 and GeForce 315M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD Graphics 4400
2013
20 Watt
1.35
+350%

HD Graphics 4400 outperforms 315M by a whopping 350% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10291338
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.631.47
ArchitectureGeneration 7.5 (2013)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameHaswell GT2GT218
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 September 2013 (11 years ago)5 January 2011 (14 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 cores16016
Core clock speed200 MHz606 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors392 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology22 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)20 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate19.004.848
Floating-point processing power0.304 TFLOPS0.03878 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs24
TMUs208

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 supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceRing BusPCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedUp to 512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem SharedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 GB/s
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 ConnectorsPortable Device DependentDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power managementno data8.0
Quick Sync+no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.34.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA-+

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.

HD Graphics 4400 1.35
+350%
GeForce 315M 0.30

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.

HD Graphics 4400 522
+354%
GeForce 315M 115

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

HD Graphics 4400 3583
+223%
GeForce 315M 1109

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:

900p12
+500%
2−3
−500%
Full HD10
+400%
2−3
−400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Fortnite 11
+450%
2−3
−450%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
Valorant 30−35
+30.8%
24−27
−30.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 27−30
+123%
12−14
−123%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 15
+50%
10−11
−50%
Fortnite 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Valorant 30−35
+30.8%
24−27
−30.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 16−18
+70%
10−11
−70%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+133%
3−4
−133%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+28.6%
7−8
−28.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Valorant 30−35
+30.8%
24−27
−30.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
+700%
1−2
−700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%
Valorant 5−6
+400%
1−2
−400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD Graphics 4400 and GeForce 315M compete in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 4400 is 500% faster in 900p
  • HD Graphics 4400 is 400% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD Graphics 4400 is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD Graphics 4400 is ahead in 30 tests (91%)
  • there's a draw in 3 tests (9%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 0.30
Recency 3 September 2013 5 January 2011
Chip lithography 22 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 20 Watt 14 Watt

HD Graphics 4400 has a 350% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 81.8% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 315M, on the other hand, has 42.9% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 4400 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.

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.


Intel HD Graphics 4400
HD Graphics 4400
NVIDIA GeForce 315M
GeForce 315M

Other comparisons

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.


3.1 1486 votes

Rate HD Graphics 4400 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 159 votes

Rate GeForce 315M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about HD Graphics 4400 or GeForce 315M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.