Radeon R5 M315 vs RX 5500 XT
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 5500 XT with Radeon R5 M315, including specs and performance data.
5500 XT outperforms R5 M315 by a whopping 1756% 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 | 291 | 1101 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 36.36 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.83 | no data |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
| GPU code name | Navi 14 | Meso |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 December 2019 (5 years ago) | 5 May 2015 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $169 | no data |
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 | 1408 | 384 |
| Compute units | no data | 5 |
| Core clock speed | 1607 MHz | 970 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1845 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 6,400 million | 1,550 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 162.4 | 23.28 |
| Floating-point processing power | 5.196 TFLOPS | 0.745 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 8 |
| TMUs | 88 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 96 KB |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 4.0 x8 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 180 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 8-pin | no data |
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 | GDDR6 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | 1000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 224.0 GB/s | 14.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | + | - |
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 | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| ZeroCore | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | DirectX® 12 |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 6.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | Not Listed |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| Mantle | - | + |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 76
+1800%
| 4−5
−1800%
|
| 1440p | 42
+2000%
| 2−3
−2000%
|
| 4K | 24
+2300%
| 1−2
−2300%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.22 | no data |
| 1440p | 4.02 | no data |
| 4K | 7.04 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 254
+2017%
|
12−14
−2017%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 78
+2500%
|
3−4
−2500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 74
+7300%
|
1−2
−7300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 196
+1860%
|
10−11
−1860%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 61
+1933%
|
3−4
−1933%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 105
+5150%
|
2−3
−5150%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 78
+1014%
|
7−8
−1014%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 109
+10800%
|
1−2
−10800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+856%
|
9−10
−856%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+379%
|
30−35
−379%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 71
+7000%
|
1−2
−7000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 98
+1860%
|
5−6
−1860%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 240−250
+786%
|
27−30
−786%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 45
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Dota 2 | 149
+831%
|
16−18
−831%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 96
+4700%
|
2−3
−4700%
|
| Fortnite | 110−120
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 66
+843%
|
7−8
−843%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 94
+9300%
|
1−2
−9300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 94
+1780%
|
5−6
−1780%
|
| Metro Exodus | 52
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+856%
|
9−10
−856%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95
+1257%
|
7−8
−1257%
|
| Valorant | 150−160
+379%
|
30−35
−379%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 68
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40
+1233%
|
3−4
−1233%
|
| Dota 2 | 143
+794%
|
16−18
−794%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 85−90
+2800%
|
3−4
−2800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 89
+4350%
|
2−3
−4350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 56
+700%
|
7−8
−700%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 85−90
+856%
|
9−10
−856%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 58
+729%
|
7−8
−729%
|
| Valorant | 114
+245%
|
30−35
−245%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 110−120
+3633%
|
3−4
−3633%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+1275%
|
4−5
−1275%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+2157%
|
7−8
−2157%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+2100%
|
2−3
−2100%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180
+1350%
|
12−14
−1350%
|
| Valorant | 190−200
+6400%
|
3−4
−6400%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 20 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 45−50
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 60
+5900%
|
1−2
−5900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 41
+1267%
|
3−4
−1267%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 50−55
+2500%
|
2−3
−2500%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 13 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 42
+200%
|
14−16
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 31
+3000%
|
1−2
−3000%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+2033%
|
6−7
−2033%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35
+3400%
|
1−2
−3400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 78 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 24−27
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
This is how RX 5500 XT and R5 M315 compete in popular games:
- RX 5500 XT is 1800% faster in 1080p
- RX 5500 XT is 2000% faster in 1440p
- RX 5500 XT is 2300% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX 5500 XT is 10800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 5500 XT surpassed R5 M315 in all 46 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 21.71 | 1.17 |
| Recency | 12 December 2019 | 5 May 2015 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
RX 5500 XT has a 1755.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5500 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M315 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX 5500 XT is a desktop graphics card while Radeon R5 M315 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
