NVS 315 vs GeForce GTX 980 Ti
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 980 Ti with NVS 315, including specs and performance data.
GTX 980 Ti outperforms NVS 315 by a whopping 3889% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 140 | 1135 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 14.26 | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 9.88 | 3.26 |
| Architecture | Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | GM200 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Workstation |
| Release date | 2 June 2015 (9 years ago) | 10 March 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $649 | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
GTX 980 Ti has 20271% 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 cores | 2816 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 523 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1075 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 8,000 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 189.4 | 4.184 |
| Floating-point processing power | 6.06 TFLOPS | 0.1004 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 96 | 4 |
| TMUs | 176 | 8 |
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 Express 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 267 mm | 145 mm |
| Height | 4.376" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | 1-slot |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 600 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin | None |
| 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 type | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 384 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 7.0 GB/s | 875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 336.5 GB/s | 14 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 | 1x DMS-59 |
| Multi monitor support | 4 displays | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| HDCP | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | - |
| GeForce ShadowPlay | + | - |
| GPU Boost | 2.0 | no data |
| GameWorks | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.1.126 | N/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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 99
+4850%
| 2−3
−4850%
|
| 1440p | 51
+5000%
| 1−2
−5000%
|
| 4K | 53
+5200%
| 1−2
−5200%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 6.56
+1113%
| 79.50
−1113%
|
| 1440p | 12.73
+1149%
| 159.00
−1149%
|
| 4K | 12.25
+1198%
| 159.00
−1198%
|
- GTX 980 Ti has 1113% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- GTX 980 Ti has 1149% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- GTX 980 Ti has 1198% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+4850%
|
2−3
−4850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+4175%
|
4−5
−4175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+4500%
|
2−3
−4500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+4667%
|
3−4
−4667%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 95−100
+4850%
|
2−3
−4850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
| Dota 2 | 23 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Fortnite | 160−170
+3925%
|
4−5
−3925%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+4175%
|
4−5
−4175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+4500%
|
2−3
−4500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 34 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 85−90
+4300%
|
2−3
−4300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+4725%
|
4−5
−4725%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 70−75
+7100%
|
1−2
−7100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 50
+4900%
|
1−2
−4900%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+4667%
|
3−4
−4667%
|
| World of Tanks | 270−280
+4550%
|
6−7
−4550%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 73
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 70−75
+7200%
|
1−2
−7200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 75−80
+7500%
|
1−2
−7500%
|
| Dota 2 | 110−120
+5650%
|
2−3
−5650%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 90−95
+4550%
|
2−3
−4550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 170−180
+4175%
|
4−5
−4175%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 90−95
+4500%
|
2−3
−4500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 190−200
+4725%
|
4−5
−4725%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+4667%
|
3−4
−4667%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+6400%
|
1−2
−6400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 65−70
+6500%
|
1−2
−6500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+3950%
|
4−5
−3950%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 220−230
+4480%
|
5−6
−4480%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 65−70
+6700%
|
1−2
−6700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 110−120
+5650%
|
2−3
−5650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 100−110
+5000%
|
2−3
−5000%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60
+5800%
|
1−2
−5800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 75−80
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+5900%
|
1−2
−5900%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+5350%
|
2−3
−5350%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 79
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 79
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 110−120
+5600%
|
2−3
−5600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 79
+7800%
|
1−2
−7800%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 132
+4300%
|
3−4
−4300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 50−55
+5100%
|
1−2
−5100%
|
| Fortnite | 45−50
+4800%
|
1−2
−4800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 55−60
+5700%
|
1−2
−5700%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+5500%
|
1−2
−5500%
|
This is how GTX 980 Ti and NVS 315 compete in popular games:
- GTX 980 Ti is 4850% faster in 1080p
- GTX 980 Ti is 5000% faster in 1440p
- GTX 980 Ti is 5200% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 35.50 | 0.89 |
| Recency | 2 June 2015 | 10 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 6 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 250 Watt | 19 Watt |
GTX 980 Ti has a 3888.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
NVS 315, on the other hand, has 1215.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce GTX 980 Ti is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 Ti is a desktop card while NVS 315 is a workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
