GeForce 410M vs NVS 315
Aggregated performance score
NVS 315 outperforms GeForce 410M by a substantial 35% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1086 | 1143 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | 0.01 |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Fermi (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GF119 | N12M-GS |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 March 2013 (11 years ago) | 6 January 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $159 | no data |
| Current price | $213 (1.3x MSRP) | $163 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
NVS 315 has 100% better value for money than GeForce 410M.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 48 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 523 MHz | 575 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.184 | 4.600 |
| Floating-point performance | 100.4 gflops | 110.4 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on NVS 315 and GeForce 410M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 145 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| 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 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | Up to 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1750 MHz | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14 GB/s | 12.8 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 | 1x DMS-59 | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics 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 | + |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | 2.1 | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
NVS 315 outperforms GeForce 410M by 35% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
NVS 315 outperforms GeForce 410M by 35% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 9%
GeForce 410M outperforms NVS 315 by 16% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.
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 | 10−12
+25%
| 8
−25%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.89 | 0.66 |
| Recency | 10 March 2013 | 6 January 2011 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 19 Watt | 15 Watt |
The NVS 315 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 410M in performance tests.
Be aware that NVS 315 is a workstation card while GeForce 410M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
