NVS 315 vs HD Graphics 520
Aggregate performance score
We've compared HD Graphics 520 with NVS 315, including specs and performance data.
HD Graphics 520 outperforms NVS 315 by a whopping 142% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 884 | 1144 |
| Place by popularity | 55 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.07 |
| Power efficiency | 9.84 | 3.22 |
| Architecture | Generation 9.0 (2015−2016) | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) |
| GPU code name | Skylake GT2 | GF119 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Workstation |
| Release date | 1 September 2015 (9 years ago) | 10 March 2013 (12 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $159 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
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 | 192 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 523 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 189 million | 292 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm+ | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 19 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.60 | 4.184 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.3456 TFLOPS | 0.1004 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 3 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 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).
| Interface | Ring Bus | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 145 mm |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| 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 | DDR3L/LPDDR3/DDR4 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | Portable Device Dependent | 1x DMS-59 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | + | no data |
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 | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 3.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | 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
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.
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:
| 900p | 20
+150%
| 8−9
−150%
|
| Full HD | 11
+175%
| 4−5
−175%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 39.75 |
FPS performance in popular games
- Full HD
Low Preset - Full HD
Medium Preset - Full HD
High Preset - Full HD
Ultra Preset - Full HD
Epic Preset - 1440p
High Preset - 1440p
Ultra Preset - 1440p
Epic Preset - 4K
High Preset - 4K
Ultra Preset - 4K
Epic Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30
+150%
|
12−14
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 26
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Dota 2 | 22
+144%
|
9−10
−144%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+144%
|
16−18
−144%
|
| Fortnite | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+180%
|
5−6
−180%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8
−171%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+150%
|
6−7
−150%
|
| Valorant | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
This is how HD Graphics 520 and NVS 315 compete in popular games:
- HD Graphics 520 is 150% faster in 900p
- HD Graphics 520 is 175% faster in 1080p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.86 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 1 September 2015 | 10 March 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 32 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 19 Watt |
HD Graphics 520 has a 141.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 26.7% lower power consumption.
The HD Graphics 520 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.
Be aware that HD Graphics 520 is a notebook 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.
