Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce 315M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 315M and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega 7 outperforms 315M by a whopping 2393% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1338 | 543 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 1.47 | 11.40 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT218 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 January 2011 (14 years ago) | 13 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 cores | 16 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 606 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 260 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 4.848 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.03878 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 73 | no data |
| ROPs | 4 | 8 |
| TMUs | 8 | 28 |
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 | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | Up to 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 12.8 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | DisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| 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 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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 | 0−1 | 24 |
| 1440p | 1−2
−2400%
| 25
+2400%
|
| 4K | 0−1 | 18 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1133%
|
37
+1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−188%
|
75−80
+188%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−346%
|
58
+346%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−2300%
|
240−250
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35
+1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−229%
|
23
+229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−375%
|
19
+375%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−181%
|
73
+181%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−2300%
|
240−250
+2300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−800%
|
27
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−225%
|
13
+225%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+4%
|
25
−4%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1850%
|
35−40
+1850%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−1150%
|
25
+1150%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 315M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 2400% faster in 1440p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 315M is 4% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 1850% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce 315M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 30 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 31 test (50%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.30 | 7.48 |
| Recency | 5 January 2011 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 45 Watt |
GeForce 315M has 221.4% lower power consumption.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 2393.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 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.
