NVS 315 vs Quadro FX 2800M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro FX 2800M with NVS 315, including specs and performance data.
FX 2800M outperforms NVS 315 by a significant 20% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1084 | 1124 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 1.00 | 3.30 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | G92 | 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 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 96 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 523 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 28.80 | 4.184 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.288 TFLOPS | 0.1004 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 48 | 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 | 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 |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | 875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 64 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 compatibility
List of supported 3D 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 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.
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%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 6.63 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+30%
|
10−11
−30%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+22.2%
|
9−10
−22.2%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+33.3%
|
24−27
−33.3%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 7−8
+40%
|
5−6
−40%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
This is how FX 2800M and NVS 315 compete in popular games:
- FX 2800M is 29% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.08 | 0.90 |
| Recency | 1 December 2009 | 10 March 2013 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 19 Watt |
FX 2800M has a 20% higher aggregate performance score.
NVS 315, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 294.7% lower power consumption.
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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
