GeForce 315M vs Radeon RX 560 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 560 Mobile and GeForce 315M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
560 Mobile outperforms 315M by a whopping 3623% 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 | 479 | 1398 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.67 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 12.03 | 1.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Baffin | GT218 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2017 (8 years ago) | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $99.99 | 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 | 1024 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1175 MHz | 606 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1275 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,000 million | 260 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 76.93 | 4.848 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.462 TFLOPS | 0.03878 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 73 |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 64 | 8 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 1024 KB | 32 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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | Up to 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1500 MHz | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 96 GB/s | 12.8 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
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 | Portable Device Dependent | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| FreeSync | + | - |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 43
+4200%
| 1−2
−4200%
|
| 4K | 36 | 0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 2.33 | no data |
| 4K | 2.78 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 87
+4250%
|
2−3
−4250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 49
+600%
|
7−8
−600%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+1085%
|
12−14
−1085%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+711%
|
9−10
−711%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 63
+6200%
|
1−2
−6200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 45
+543%
|
7−8
−543%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+600%
|
5−6
−600%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Dota 2 | 70−75
+711%
|
9−10
−711%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1025%
|
4−5
−1025%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 18−20
+280%
|
5−6
−280%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 13
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 20
+300%
|
5−6
−300%
|
| Valorant | 95−100
+288%
|
24−27
−288%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 50
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 75−80
+3850%
|
2−3
−3850%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+1900%
|
3−4
−1900%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+3700%
|
3−4
−3700%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2400%
|
1−2
−2400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+46.7%
|
14−16
−46.7%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+2650%
|
2−3
−2650%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 35−40
+3700%
|
1−2
−3700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 36
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
This is how RX 560 Mobile and GeForce 315M compete in popular games:
- RX 560 Mobile is 4200% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 560 Mobile is 2650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 560 Mobile surpassed GeForce 315M in all 29 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.68 | 0.26 |
| Recency | 5 January 2017 | 5 January 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 14 Watt |
RX 560 Mobile has a 3623.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.
GeForce 315M, on the other hand, has 364.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX 560 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
