GeForce GTX 1650 vs NVS 315

#ad 
Buy
NVS 300 NVS 310 NVS 315 NVS 510 NVS 810
VS
#ad 
Buy
GTX 1650 GTX 1650 GDDR6 GTX 1650 SUPER GTX 1650 TU106 GTX 1650 TU116

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 315 with GeForce GTX 1650, including specs and performance data.

NVS 315
2013
1 GB DDR3, 19 Watt
0.77

GTX 1650 outperforms NVS 315 by a whopping 2190% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Contents

NVS 315 NVS 315
GTX 1650 GTX 1650

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1142285
Place by popularitynot in top-1003
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.0734.56
Power efficiency3.2218.69
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGF119TU117
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date10 March 2013 (12 years ago)23 April 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 $149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.

GTX 1650 has 49271% better value for money than NVS 315.

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 cores48896
Core clock speed523 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1665 MHz
Number of transistors292 million4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate4.18493.24
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPS2.984 TFLOPS
ROPs432
TMUs856

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length145 mm229 mm
Width1-slot2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount1 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed875 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth14 GB/s128.0 GB/s
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DMS-591x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.5
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.17.5

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.

NVS 315 0.77
GTX 1650 17.63
+2190%

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
GTX 1650 7880
+2177%

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.

NVS 315 882
GTX 1650 39129
+4336%

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 HD2−3
−3100%
64
+3100%
1440p1−2
−3700%
38
+3700%
4K1−2
−2300%
24
+2300%

Cost per frame, $

1080p79.50
−3315%
2.33
+3315%
1440p159.00
−3955%
3.92
+3955%
4K159.00
−2461%
6.21
+2461%
  • GTX 1650 has 3315% lower cost per frame in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 has 3955% lower cost per frame in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 has 2461% lower cost per frame in 4K

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 61
+0%
61
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Far Cry 5 69
+0%
69
+0%
Fortnite 211
+0%
211
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 90
+0%
90
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 73
+0%
73
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 90
+0%
90
+0%
Valorant 292
+0%
292
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Battlefield 5 53
+0%
53
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 97
+0%
97
+0%
Far Cry 5 63
+0%
63
+0%
Fortnite 85
+0%
85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 83
+0%
83
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 62
+0%
62
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 81
+0%
81
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 86
+0%
86
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 71
+0%
71
+0%
Valorant 260
+0%
260
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 51
+0%
51
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Dota 2 92
+0%
92
+0%
Far Cry 5 59
+0%
59
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 65
+0%
65
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 66
+0%
66
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 41
+0%
41
+0%
Valorant 70
+0%
70
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 61
+0%
61
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Valorant 177
+0%
177
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 39
+0%
39
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Far Cry 5 40
+0%
40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 46
+0%
46
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 42
+0%
42
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 33
+0%
33
+0%
Metro Exodus 12
+0%
12
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 26
+0%
26
+0%
Valorant 83
+0%
83
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Dota 2 59
+0%
59
+0%
Far Cry 5 19
+0%
19
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 30
+0%
30
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 26
+0%
26
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 11
+0%
11
+0%

This is how NVS 315 and GTX 1650 compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1650 is 3100% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1650 is 3700% faster in 1440p
  • GTX 1650 is 2300% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score 0.77 17.63
Recency 10 March 2013 23 April 2019
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 4 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 75 Watt

NVS 315 has 294.7% lower power consumption.

GTX 1650, on the other hand, has a 2189.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1650 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 315 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce GTX 1650 is a desktop one.

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 NVS 315
NVS 315
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1650
GeForce GTX 1650
Like
Like

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

NVS 315 NVS 315
vs
FX 3700 Quadro FX 3700
GTX 1650 GeForce GTX 1650
vs
GTX 780 GeForce GTX 780
NVS 315 NVS 315
vs
FX 1800 Quadro FX 1800
NVS 290 NVS 290
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
FX 3500 FX 3500
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
Quadro P620 P620
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
RTX 2060 RTX 2060
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
GMA X4500 GMA X4500
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
UHD Graphics 770 UHD Graphics 770
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
T400 4 GB T400 4 GB
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
RTX 4090 RTX 4090
vs
NVS 315 NVS 315
K3000M K3000M
vs
Quadro K2000 K2000
FirePro M5100 M5100
vs
Quadro K2000 K2000

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.

3.4 183 votes

Rate NVS 315 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 24997 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 1650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 315 or GeForce GTX 1650, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.