NVS 315 vs Quadro K1100M

Place in the ranking	794	1124
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.05	0.07
Power efficiency	4.39	3.30
Architecture	Kepler (2012−2018)	Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GK107	GF119
Market segment	Mobile workstation	Workstation
Release date	23 July 2013 (11 years ago)	10 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$109.94	$159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

K1100M has 1400% better value for money than NVS 315.

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	384	48
Core clock speed	706 MHz	523 MHz
Number of transistors	1,270 million	292 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	19 Watt
Texture fill rate	22.59	4.184
Floating-point processing power	0.5422 TFLOPS	0.1004 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	32	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).

Laptop size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-A (3.0)	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	GDDR5	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	700 MHz	875 MHz
Memory bandwidth	44.8 GB/s	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	No outputs	1x DMS-59
Display Port	1.2	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus	+	-
3D Vision Pro	+	no data
Mosaic	+	no data
nView Display Management	+	no data
Optimus	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.1	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	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. 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.

K1100M 2.83
+214%

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.

K1100M 1090
+215%

NVS 315 346

GeekBench 5 OpenCL

Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.

K1100M 3024
+243%

NVS 315 882

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

17
+240%

5−6

−240%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

6.47

31.80

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+400%

1−2

−400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +217%	12−14 −217%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	23 +229%	7−8 −229%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +217%	12−14 −217%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	14−16 +275%	4−5 −275%
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +267%	6−7 −267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4 +300%	1−2 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +217%	12−14 −217%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+250%

2−3

−250%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	8−9 +300%	2−3 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+500%

1−2

−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+300%

1−2

−300%

This is how K1100M and NVS 315 compete in popular games:

K1100M is 240% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.83	0.90
Recency	23 July 2013	10 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	45 Watt	19 Watt

K1100M has a 214.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 months, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 315, on the other hand, has 136.8% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K1100M is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K1100M is a mobile workstation card while NVS 315 is a workstation one.

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