GeForce RTX 2060 vs NVS 315

Place in the ranking	1126	131
Place by popularity	not in top-100	16
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.07	40.49
Power efficiency	3.24	15.72
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF119	TU106
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	10 March 2013 (11 years ago)	7 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$159	$349

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RTX 2060 has 57743% 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 cores	48	1920
Core clock speed	523 MHz	1365 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1680 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	10,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	160 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.184	201.6
Floating-point processing power	0.1004 TFLOPS	6.451 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	48
TMUs	8	120
Tensor Cores	no data	240
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	30

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	229 mm
Width	1-slot	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 8-pin

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	6 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	875 MHz	1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth	14 GB/s	336.0 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	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI	-	+
G-SYNC support	-	+

Supported technologies

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

VR Ready

no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12
Shader Model	5.1	6.5
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	7.5

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. 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 0.90

RTX 2060 36.72
+3980%

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

RTX 2060 14146
+3988%

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

RTX 2060 71612
+8019%

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	2−3 −5850%	119 +5850%
1440p	1−2 −7600%	77 +7600%
4K	1−2 −4600%	47 +4600%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	79.50	2.93
1440p	159.00	4.53
4K	159.00	7.43

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

60−65

+0%

60−65

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	92 +0%	92 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	79 +0%	79 +0%
Battlefield 5	157 +0%	157 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	106 +0%	106 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	114 +0%	114 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	128 +0%	128 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	205 +0%	205 +0%
Hitman 3	98 +0%	98 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	248 +0%	248 +0%
Metro Exodus	144 +0%	144 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	109 +0%	109 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	191 +0%	191 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	254 +0%	254 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	131 +0%	131 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	64 +0%	64 +0%
Battlefield 5	140 +0%	140 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	96 +0%	96 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	91 +0%	91 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	95 +0%	95 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	194 +0%	194 +0%
Hitman 3	96 +0%	96 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	247 +0%	247 +0%
Metro Exodus	140 +0%	140 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	103 +0%	103 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	75−80 +0%	75−80 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	244 +0%	244 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	56 +0%	56 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	55 +0%	55 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	71 +0%	71 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%
Far Cry 5	70 +0%	70 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	105 +0%	105 +0%
Hitman 3	81 +0%	81 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	120 +0%	120 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	130−140 +0%	130−140 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	73 +0%	73 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45 +0%	45 +0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	70−75 +0%	70−75 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	55−60 +0%	55−60 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +0%	35−40 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	42 +0%	42 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	51 +0%	51 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	27−30 +0%	27−30 +0%
Far Cry 5	40−45 +0%	40−45 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	200−210 +0%	200−210 +0%
Hitman 3	54 +0%	54 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	89 +0%	89 +0%
Metro Exodus	76 +0%	76 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	50−55 +0%	50−55 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	236 +0%	236 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	40 +0%	40 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	37 +0%	37 +0%
Hitman 3	30−33 +0%	30−33 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	104 +0%	104 +0%
Metro Exodus	52 +0%	52 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	51 +0%	51 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	28 +0%	28 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	24 +0%	24 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	28 +0%	28 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +0%	12−14 +0%
Far Cry 5	25 +0%	25 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	59 +0%	59 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	45−50 +0%	45−50 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	17 +0%	17 +0%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

+0%

This is how NVS 315 and RTX 2060 compete in popular games:

RTX 2060 is 5850% faster in 1080p
RTX 2060 is 7600% faster in 1440p
RTX 2060 is 4600% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

there's a draw in 72 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.90	36.72
Recency	10 March 2013	7 January 2019
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	6 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	160 Watt

NVS 315 has 742.1% lower power consumption.

RTX 2060, on the other hand, has a 3980% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 2060 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 RTX 2060 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.