Radeon R5 340X OEM vs NVS 315

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1124not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.03no data
Power efficiency3.30no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGF119Oland
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop
Release date10 March 2013 (11 years ago)5 May 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$159 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores48384
Core clock speed523 MHz900 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1050 MHz
Number of transistors292 million950 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)19 Watt65 Watt
Texture fill rate4.18421.60
Floating-point processing power0.1004 TFLOPS0.6912 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs824

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 3.0 x8
Length145 mm145 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed875 MHz1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth14 GB/s16 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 Connectors1x DMS-591x DVI, 1x DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (11_1)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.11.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA2.1-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 March 2013 5 May 2015
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 19 Watt 65 Watt

NVS 315 has 242.1% lower power consumption.

R5 340X OEM, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between NVS 315 and Radeon R5 340X OEM. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that NVS 315 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon R5 340X OEM is a desktop 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 NVS 315
NVS 315
AMD Radeon R5 340X OEM
Radeon R5 340X OEM

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.


3.4 179 votes

Rate NVS 315 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 454 votes

Rate Radeon R5 340X OEM 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.