Radeon 760M vs NVS 315

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 315 with Radeon 760M, including specs and performance data.

NVS 315
2013
1 GB DDR3, 19 Watt
0.90

760M outperforms NVS 315 by a whopping 1549% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1129357
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.07no data
Power efficiency3.2768.23
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGF119Hawx Point
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date10 March 2013 (11 years ago)6 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 no data

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 cores48512
Core clock speed523 MHz800 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2599 MHz
Number of transistors292 million25,390 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm4 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate4.18483.17
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPS5.323 TFLOPS
ROPs416
TMUs832
Ray Tracing Coresno data8

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 4.0 x8
Length145 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed875 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14 GB/sno data
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-59Portable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.12.1
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA2.1-

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.

NVS 315 0.90
Radeon 760M 14.84
+1549%

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
Radeon 760M 5705
+1549%

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 HD1−2
−3000%
31
+3000%
1440p1−2
−1800%
19
+1800%

Cost per frame, $

1080p159.00no data
1440p159.00no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 25
+0%
25
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30
+0%
30
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12
+0%
12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 51
+0%
51
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Dota 2 23
+0%
23
+0%
Far Cry 5 29
+0%
29
+0%
Fortnite 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 44
+0%
44
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 34
+0%
34
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
World of Tanks 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 18
+0%
18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Dota 2 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 37
+0%
37
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Valorant 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
World of Tanks 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Metro Exodus 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Dota 2 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Fortnite 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

This is how NVS 315 and Radeon 760M compete in popular games:

  • Radeon 760M is 3000% faster in 1080p
  • Radeon 760M is 1800% faster in 1440p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 64 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.90 14.84
Recency 10 March 2013 6 December 2023
Chip lithography 40 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 15 Watt

Radeon 760M has a 1548.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 26.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 315 is a workstation card while Radeon 760M is a notebook one.


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

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
AMD Radeon 760M
Radeon 760M

Other comparisons

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

Community ratings

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


3.4 181 vote

Rate NVS 315 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 218 votes

Rate Radeon 760M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.