Radeon RX Vega 3 vs GeForce GT 415M

Place in performance ranking	1164	777
Place by popularity	not in top-100	79
Architecture	Fermi (2010−2014)	Vega (2017−2020)
GPU code name	N11P-GV	Vega Raven Ridge
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	3 September 2010 (14 years ago)	7 January 2018 (6 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	48	192
CUDA cores	48	no data
Core clock speed	500 MHz	600 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	585 million	4,940 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.000	12.13
Floating-point performance	0.096 gflops	0.3882 gflops

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	medium sized	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	(G)DDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	System Shared
Memory bus width	128 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	25.6 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

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	+	-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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.

GT 415M 0.74

RX Vega 3 2.98
+303%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

GT 415M 286

RX Vega 3 1149
+302%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GT 415M 379

RX Vega 3 1724
+355%

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

2−3

−500%

12
+500%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−100%

6−7
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −40%	7 +40%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −100%	6 +100%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Hitman 3	5−6 +0%	5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −100%	21−24 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	6
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −100%	12−14 +100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −25.8%	35−40 +25.8%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −700%	8−9 +700%
Hitman 3	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 −100%	21−24 +100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	7−8
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −83.3%	11 +83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −70%	17 +70%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −25.8%	35−40 +25.8%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −80%	9−10 +80%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −133%	7−8 +133%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −100%	6−7 +100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −60%	8−9 +60%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +22.2%	9 −22.2%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −50%	9 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 +150%	4 −150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−35 −25.8%	35−40 +25.8%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

7−8

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	5−6
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	3−4
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −200%	3−4 +200%
Hitman 3	6−7 −33.3%	8−9 +33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −167%	8−9 +167%
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 −800%	18−20 +800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−100%

6−7
+100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

0−1

2−3

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −100%	2−3 +100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−100%

4−5
+100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6 +0%	6 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	7 +0%	7 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Battlefield 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +0%	16−18 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5

1−2

+0%

1−2

+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how GT 415M and RX Vega 3 compete in popular games:

RX Vega 3 is 500% faster in 1080p

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

in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 415M is 150% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX Vega 3 is 800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GT 415M is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
RX Vega 3 is ahead in 31 test (58%)
there's a draw in 20 tests (38%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.74	2.98
Recency	3 September 2010	7 January 2018
Chip lithography	40 nm	14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	12 Watt	15 Watt

GT 415M has 25% lower power consumption.

RX Vega 3, on the other hand, has a 302.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX Vega 3 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M in performance tests.

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