Radeon Vega 7 vs NVS 315

Place in the ranking	1122	529
Place by popularity	not in top-100	39
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	0.03	no data
Power efficiency	3.28	11.48
Architecture	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	GF119	Cezanne
Market segment	Workstation	Desktop
Release date	10 March 2013 (11 years ago)	13 April 2021 (3 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 cores	48	448
Core clock speed	523 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	292 million	9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	4.184	53.20
Floating-point processing power	0.1004 TFLOPS	1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	8
TMUs	8	28

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	PCIe 2.0 x16	IGP
Length	145 mm	no data
Width	1-slot	IGP
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	DDR3	System Shared
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	System Shared
Memory bus width	64 Bit	System Shared
Memory clock speed	875 MHz	System Shared
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 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (11_0)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	5.1	6.4
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	2.1	-

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	2−3 −1000%	22 +1000%
1440p	3−4 −833%	28 +833%
4K	2−3 −900%	20 +900%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	79.50	no data
1440p	53.00	no data
4K	79.50	no data

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.90	7.46
Recency	10 March 2013	13 April 2021
Chip lithography	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	19 Watt	45 Watt

NVS 315 has 136.8% lower power consumption.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 728.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 315 is a workstation graphics card while Radeon Vega 7 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.