NVS 315 vs Quadro FX 3700

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro FX 3700 and NVS 315, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

FX 3700
2008
512 MB GDDR3, 78 Watt
0.98
+8.9%

FX 3700 outperforms NVS 315 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11131126
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.010.07
Power efficiency0.863.25
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameG92GF119
Market segmentWorkstationWorkstation
Release date8 January 2008 (16 years ago)10 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,599 $159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

NVS 315 has 600% better value for money than FX 3700.

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 cores11248
Core clock speed500 MHz523 MHz
Number of transistors754 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)78 Watt19 Watt
Texture fill rate28.004.184
Floating-point processing power0.28 TFLOPS0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs164
TMUs568

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 2.0 x16
Length267 mm145 mm
Width1-slot1-slot
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount512 MB1 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz875 MHz
Memory bandwidth51.2 GB/s14 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x S-Video1x DMS-59

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model4.05.1
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.12.1

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. 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.

FX 3700 0.98
+8.9%
NVS 315 0.90

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.

FX 3700 377
+9%
NVS 315 346

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.98 0.90
Recency 8 January 2008 10 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 1 GB
Chip lithography 65 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 78 Watt 19 Watt

FX 3700 has a 8.9% higher aggregate performance score.

NVS 315, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 310.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Quadro FX 3700 and NVS 315.


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 Quadro FX 3700
Quadro FX 3700
NVIDIA NVS 315
NVS 315

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.


4.1 21 vote

Rate Quadro FX 3700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 179 votes

Rate NVS 315 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.