Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q vs GeForce 315M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 315M with Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 315M
2011
Up to 512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.30

RTX 4000 Max-Q outperforms 315M by a whopping 10757% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking1329169
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.4727.94
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGT218TU104
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 January 2011 (13 years ago)27 May 2019 (5 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 cores162560
Core clock speed606 MHz780 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1380 MHz
Number of transistors260 million13,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt80 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848220.8
Floating-point processing power0.03878 TFLOPS7.066 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs464
TMUs8160
Tensor Coresno data320
Ray Tracing Coresno data40

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz1625 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s416.0 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 ConnectorsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVINo outputs
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support-+

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management8.0no data
VR Readyno data+

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL4.14.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA+7.5

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.

GeForce 315M 0.30
RTX 4000 Max-Q 32.57
+10757%

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.

GeForce 315M 115
RTX 4000 Max-Q 12546
+10810%

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 HD0−194
1440p-0−146
4K0−155

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2233%
70−75
+2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3200%
65−70
+3200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1600%
65−70
+1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1675%
140−150
+1675%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2775%
110−120
+2775%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−321%
110−120
+321%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2233%
70−75
+2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3200%
65−70
+3200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1600%
65−70
+1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1675%
140−150
+1675%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2775%
110−120
+2775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−656%
65−70
+656%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−321%
110−120
+321%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−2233%
70−75
+2233%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−3200%
65−70
+3200%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1600%
65−70
+1600%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1675%
140−150
+1675%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2775%
110−120
+2775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−600%
63
+600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−321%
110−120
+321%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 21−24
Hitman 3 6−7
−583%
40−45
+583%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−3350%
65−70
+3350%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2650%
55−60
+2650%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 18−20

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1300%
27−30
+1300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Battlefield 5 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%
Metro Exodus 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Metro Exodus 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 170−180
+0%
170−180
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Hitman 3 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Metro Exodus 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 36
+0%
36
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RTX 4000 Max-Q is 3350% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX 4000 Max-Q is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.30 32.57
Recency 5 January 2011 27 May 2019
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 80 Watt

GeForce 315M has 471.4% lower power consumption.

RTX 4000 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 10756.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 315M is a notebook graphics card while Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 315M
GeForce 315M
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q
Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 158 votes

Rate GeForce 315M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 22 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 4000 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.