NVS 315 vs Quadro FX 1800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 1800M with NVS 315, including specs and performance data.
1800M outperforms NVS 315 by a considerable 42% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1099 | 1190 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.03 |
| Power efficiency | 2.01 | 3.35 |
| 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 (16 years ago) | 10 March 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
| L2 Cache | 64 KB | 128 KB |
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
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DMS-59 |
API and SDK support
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 benchmarks
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.
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
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
+55.6%
|
18−20
−55.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+60%
|
10−11
−60%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
+50%
|
6−7
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+57.1%
|
21−24
−57.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+55.6%
|
9−10
−55.6%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.18 | 0.83 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 10 March 2013 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 19 Watt |
FX 1800M has a 42.2% 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 graphics card while NVS 315 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
