Radeon HD 8330 vs NVS 315

Place in performance ranking	1090	1143
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.02	0.01
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	GCN (2011−2017)
GPU code name	GF119	Kabini
Market segment	Workstation	Laptop
Release date	10 March 2013 (11 years ago)	23 May 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$159	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 315 has 100% better value for money than HD 8330.

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	128
Core clock speed	523 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	1,178 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	15 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.184	3.976
Floating-point performance	100.4 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on NVS 315 and Radeon HD 8330 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	IGP
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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	DDR3	no data
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	no data
Memory clock speed	1750 MHz	no data
Memory bandwidth	14 GB/s	no data
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

1x DMS-59

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_0)
Shader Model	5.1	6.3
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2.131
CUDA	2.1	no data

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.

NVS 315 0.90
+34.3%

HD 8330 0.67

NVS 315 outperforms Radeon HD 8330 by 34% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

NVS 315 346
+33.1%

HD 8330 260

NVS 315 outperforms Radeon HD 8330 by 33% in Passmark.

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

14−16
+27.3%

−27.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

4−5

+0%

4−5

+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%