GRID K240Q vs NVS 315

Place in the ranking	1197	634
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	0.59
Power efficiency	3.36	2.08
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GF119	GK104
Market segment	Workstation	Workstation
Release date	10 March 2013 (12 years ago)	28 June 2013 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$159	$469

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

GRID K240Q has 1867% better value for money than NVS 315.

Performance to price scatter graph

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	48	1536
Core clock speed	523 MHz	745 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	3,540 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	225 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.184	95.36
Floating-point processing power	0.1004 TFLOPS	2.289 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	32
TMUs	8	128
L1 Cache	64 KB	128 KB
L2 Cache	128 KB	512 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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	875 MHz	1250 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14 GB/s	160.0 GB/s

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

1x DMS-59

No outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	2.1	3.0

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

NVS 315 0.83

GRID K240Q 6.08
+633%

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.

NVS 315 346
Samples: 178

GRID K240Q 2541
+634%

Samples: 8

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.83	6.08
Recency	10 March 2013	28 June 2013
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	225 Watt

NVS 315 has 1084.2% lower power consumption.

GRID K240Q, on the other hand, has a 632.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The GRID K240Q is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.