RTX A2000 Mobile vs GeForce 315M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 315M with RTX A2000 Mobile, including specs and performance data.

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

RTX A2000 Mobile outperforms 315M by a whopping 8470% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1329211
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.4718.55
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameGT218GA106
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 January 2011 (13 years ago)12 April 2021 (3 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 MHz893 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1358 MHz
Number of transistors260 million13,250 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt95 Watt
Texture fill rate4.848108.6
Floating-point processing power0.03878 TFLOPS6.953 TFLOPS
Gigaflops73no data
ROPs448
TMUs880
Tensor Coresno data80
Ray Tracing Coresno data20

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 4.0 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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amountUp to 512 MB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz1375 MHz
Memory bandwidth12.8 GB/s176.0 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

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL4.14.6
OpenCL1.13.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA+8.6

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 A2000 Mobile 25.71
+8470%

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 A2000 Mobile 9906
+8514%

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.

GeForce 315M 1109
RTX A2000 Mobile 63738
+5650%

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 HD0−179
1440p-0−142
4K-0−136

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3600%
74
+3600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1767%
55−60
+1767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2500%
50−55
+2500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3000%
62
+3000%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1200%
50−55
+1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1363%
110−120
+1363%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2075%
85−90
+2075%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−271%
100−110
+271%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1767%
55−60
+1767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2500%
50−55
+2500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−2400%
50
+2400%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1200%
50−55
+1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1363%
110−120
+1363%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2600%
108
+2600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−511%
55−60
+511%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−271%
100−110
+271%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−1767%
55−60
+1767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−2500%
50−55
+2500%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1950%
41
+1950%
Hitman 3 4−5
−1200%
50−55
+1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−1363%
110−120
+1363%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−2250%
94
+2250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−456%
50
+456%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−3.6%
29
+3.6%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 25
Hitman 3 6−7
−417%
30−35
+417%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−2550%
50−55
+2550%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2050%
40−45
+2050%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−1500%
16−18
+1500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 14−16

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−1000%
21−24
+1000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 55
+0%
55
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 39
+0%
39
+0%
Battlefield 5 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 32
+0%
32
+0%
Far Cry 5 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 27
+0%
27
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Far Cry 5 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Metro Exodus 49
+0%
49
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 63
+0%
63
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Hitman 3 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 130−140
+0%
130−140
+0%
Metro Exodus 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 33
+0%
33
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 35
+0%
35
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the RTX A2000 Mobile is 3600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 Mobile is ahead in 29 tests (41%)
  • there's a draw in 41 test (59%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.30 25.71
Recency 5 January 2011 12 April 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 95 Watt

GeForce 315M has 578.6% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000 Mobile, on the other hand, has a 8470% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 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 A2000 Mobile 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 RTX A2000 Mobile
RTX A2000 Mobile

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.


3 157 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 93 votes

Rate RTX A2000 Mobile 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.