NVS 315 vs Quadro FX 1800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1800M with NVS 315, including specs and performance data.
FX 1800M outperforms NVS 315 by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1061 | 1135 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 1.86 | 3.26 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GT215 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (15 years ago) | 10 March 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 72 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 561 MHz | 523 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 727 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 13.46 | 4.184 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.162 TFLOPS | 0.1004 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 8 |
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).
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | MXM-A (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 550 MHz | 875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 35.2 GB/s | 14 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 | No outputs | 1x DMS-59 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 2.1 |
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.
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.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| World of Tanks | 24−27
+44.4%
|
18−20
−44.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+60%
|
5−6
−60%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+44.4%
|
9−10
−44.4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
+50%
|
10−11
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.20 | 0.89 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 10 March 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 19 Watt |
FX 1800M has a 34.8% higher aggregate performance score.
NVS 315, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and 136.8% lower power consumption.
The Quadro FX 1800M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 1800M is a mobile workstation card while NVS 315 is a workstation one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
