Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile vs GeForce 315M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 315M with RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms 315M by a whopping 8946% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1348 | 217 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.47 | 53.25 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Ada Lovelace (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | AD107 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 26 February 2024 (1 year 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 | 16 | 2048 |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 1485 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2025 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 18,900 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | 129.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03878 TFLOPS | 8.294 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 73 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 32 |
| TMUs | 8 | 64 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 64 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 16 |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 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 | GDDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 512 MB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 2000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | 128.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | Portable Device Dependent |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 4.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | + | 8.9 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
3DMark Vantage Performance
3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−8900%
|
180−190
+8900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8900%
|
90−95
+8900%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−8900%
|
180−190
+8900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8900%
|
90−95
+8900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−8900%
|
270−280
+8900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−8471%
|
600−650
+8471%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−8938%
|
2350−2400
+8938%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−8900%
|
180−190
+8900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−8746%
|
1150−1200
+8746%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8900%
|
90−95
+8900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−8789%
|
800−850
+8789%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−8900%
|
270−280
+8900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−8471%
|
600−650
+8471%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−8650%
|
350−400
+8650%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−8938%
|
2350−2400
+8938%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8900%
|
90−95
+8900%
|
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−8789%
|
800−850
+8789%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−8900%
|
270−280
+8900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−8471%
|
600−650
+8471%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−8650%
|
350−400
+8650%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−8938%
|
2350−2400
+8938%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−8900%
|
270−280
+8900%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−8900%
|
90−95
+8900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−8900%
|
1350−1400
+8900%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−8900%
|
180−190
+8900%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−8900%
|
90−95
+8900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−8900%
|
180−190
+8900%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−8900%
|
180−190
+8900%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.26 | 23.52 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 26 February 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 35 Watt |
GeForce 315M has 150% lower power consumption.
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 8946.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.
The RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 315M is a notebook graphics card while RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
