NVS 315 vs GeForce GTX 260

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 260 with NVS 315, including specs and performance data.

GTX 260
2008
896 MB GDDR3, 182 Watt
3.15
+250%

GTX 260 outperforms NVS 315 by a whopping 250% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7511126
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.160.07
Power efficiency1.193.25
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameGT200GF119
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date16 June 2008 (16 years ago)10 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$449 $159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 260 has 129% better value for money than NVS 315.

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 cores19248
Core clock speed576 MHz523 MHz
Number of transistors1,400 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)182 Watt19 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate36.864.184
Floating-point processing power0.4769 TFLOPS0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs284
TMUs648

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length267 mm145 mm
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinNone
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount896 MB1 GB
Memory bus width448 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed999 MHz875 MHz
Memory bandwidth111.9 GB/s14 GB/s

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 ConnectorsDual Link DVIHDTV1x DMS-59
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL2.14.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+2.1

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.

GTX 260 3.15
+250%
NVS 315 0.90

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.

GTX 260 1215
+251%
NVS 315 346

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.15 0.90
Recency 16 June 2008 10 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 896 MB 1 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 182 Watt 19 Watt

GTX 260 has a 250% higher aggregate performance score.

NVS 315, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, a 14.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 857.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while NVS 315 is a 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 GTX 260
GeForce GTX 260
NVIDIA NVS 315
NVS 315

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.


3.7 609 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 179 votes

Rate NVS 315 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.