Radeon R5 M315 vs RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and Radeon R5 M315, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms R5 M315 by a whopping 622% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 497 | 1051 |
Place by popularity | 31 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 40.92 | no data |
Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) |
GPU code name | Vega | Meso |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) |
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 | 512 | 384 |
Compute units | no data | 5 |
Core clock speed | no data | 970 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 2100 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | no data | 1,550 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | no data |
Texture fill rate | no data | 23.28 |
Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.745 TFLOPS |
ROPs | no data | 8 |
TMUs | no data | 24 |
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 | no data | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
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 | no data | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | no data | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | 1000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 14.4 GB/s |
Shared memory | - | - |
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 data | No outputs |
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 compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12_1 | DirectX® 12 |
Shader Model | no data | 6.0 |
OpenGL | no data | 4.4 |
OpenCL | no data | Not Listed |
Mantle | - | + |
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.
- Other tests
- 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
- 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
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 | 22
+633%
| 3−4
−633%
|
1440p | 17
+750%
| 2−3
−750%
|
4K | 10
+900%
| 1−2
−900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
Atomic Heart | 24
+700%
|
3−4
−700%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 13
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 18
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
Atomic Heart | 19
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
Battlefield 5 | 39
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
Far Cry 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
Fortnite | 47
+2250%
|
2−3
−2250%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
Valorant | 80−85
+155%
|
30−35
−155%
|
Atomic Heart | 11
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
Battlefield 5 | 33
+3200%
|
1−2
−3200%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 9
+12.5%
|
8−9
−12.5%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 48
+77.8%
|
27−30
−77.8%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
Dota 2 | 51
+219%
|
16−18
−219%
|
Far Cry 5 | 20
+900%
|
2−3
−900%
|
Fortnite | 31
+1450%
|
2−3
−1450%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 19 | 0−1 |
Metro Exodus | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 21
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
Valorant | 80−85
+155%
|
30−35
−155%
|
Battlefield 5 | 30
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
Dota 2 | 48
+200%
|
16−18
−200%
|
Far Cry 5 | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 35−40
+517%
|
6−7
−517%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−33
+233%
|
9−10
−233%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
Valorant | 37
+12.1%
|
30−35
−12.1%
|
Fortnite | 18
+800%
|
2−3
−800%
|
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Metro Exodus | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
Valorant | 95−100
+3067%
|
3−4
−3067%
|
Battlefield 5 | 21
+950%
|
2−3
−950%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Far Cry 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+567%
|
3−4
−567%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
Fortnite | 16−18
+750%
|
2−3
−750%
|
Atomic Heart | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Grand Theft Auto V | 10
−50%
|
14−16
+50%
|
Metro Exodus | 6 | 0−1 |
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
Valorant | 40−45
+617%
|
6−7
−617%
|
Battlefield 5 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Dota 2 | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
Far Cry 5 | 8
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
Forza Horizon 5 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Fortnite | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and R5 M315 compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 633% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 750% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 3800% faster.
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M315 is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 47 tests (98%)
- R5 M315 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 8.95 | 1.24 |
Recency | 7 January 2020 | 5 May 2015 |
Chip lithography | 7 nm | 28 nm |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 621.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M315 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.