NVS 315 vs HD Graphics 630

Place in the ranking	759	1126
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.07
Power efficiency	14.20	3.24
Architecture	Generation 9.5 (2016−2020)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Kaby Lake GT2	GF119
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	1 January 2017 (7 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	350 MHz	523 MHz
Boost clock speed	1000 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	189 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm++	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	19 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.00	4.184
Floating-point processing power	0.384 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	3	4
TMUs	24	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).

Interface	Ring Bus	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	DDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	64 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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

Portable Device Dependent

1x DMS-59

Supported technologies

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

Quick Sync

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	3.0	1.1
Vulkan	+	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.

HD Graphics 630 3.11
+246%

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.

HD Graphics 630 1197
+246%

NVS 315 346

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	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
1440p	64 +256%	18−20 −256%
4K	19 +280%	5−6 −280%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	39.75
1440p	no data	8.83
4K	no data	31.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	8 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	20 +300%	5−6 −300%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +283%	6−7 −283%
Metro Exodus	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7 +250%	2−3 −250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12 +300%	3−4 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +290%	10−11 −290%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	15 +275%	4−5 −275%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +283%	6−7 −283%
Metro Exodus	4 +300%	1−2 −300%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +290%	10−11 −290%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +325%	4−5 −325%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +283%	6−7 −283%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +250%	4−5 −250%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +290%	10−11 −290%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+300%

2−3

−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	18−20 +280%	5−6 −280%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

This is how HD Graphics 630 and NVS 315 compete in popular games:

HD Graphics 630 is 275% faster in 1080p
HD Graphics 630 is 256% faster in 1440p
HD Graphics 630 is 280% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	3.11	0.90
Recency	1 January 2017	10 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount	64 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	19 Watt

HD Graphics 630 has a 245.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 6300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

The HD Graphics 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that HD Graphics 630 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.