NVS 315 vs Quadro FX 2800M
Aggregated performance score
Quadro FX 2800M outperforms NVS 315 by 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1048 | 1084 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Value for money | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| Architecture | G9x (2007−2010) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | NB10-GLM3 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Mobile workstation | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 December 2009 (14 years ago) | 10 March 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $159 |
| Current price | $140 | $213 (1.3x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
FX 2800M has 150% better value for money than NVS 315.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 96 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 523 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 4.184 |
| Floating-point performance | 288 gflops | 100.4 gflops |
Size and compatibility
Information on Quadro FX 2800M and NVS 315 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
Memory
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 GB/s | 14 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
Video outputs and ports
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 support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 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 performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Quadro FX 2800M outperforms NVS 315 by 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
Quadro FX 2800M outperforms NVS 315 by 20% in Passmark.
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 | 31
+29.2%
| 24−27
−29.2%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 9−10
+28.6%
|
7−8
−28.6%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Hitman 3 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
This is how FX 2800M and NVS 315 compete in popular games:
- FX 2800M is 29.2% faster than NVS 315 in 1080p
Advantages and disadvantages
| Performance score | 1.07 | 0.89 |
| Recency | 1 December 2009 | 10 March 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
The Quadro FX 2800M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro FX 2800M 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.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
