GeForce 315M vs Quadro K4000M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Quadro K4000M with GeForce 315M, including specs and performance data.

K4000M
2012
4 GB GDDR5, 100 Watt
4.86
+1576%

K4000M outperforms 315M by a whopping 1576% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6381336
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.491.49
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGK104GT218
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date1 June 2012 (12 years ago)5 January 2011 (14 years ago)

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 cores96016
Core clock speed601 MHz606 MHz
Number of transistors3,540 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate48.084.848
Floating-point processing power1.154 TFLOPS0.03878 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs324
TMUs808

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 sizelargeno data
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GBUp to 512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed700 MHzUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth89.6 GB/s12.8 GB/s
Shared memory--

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 ConnectorsNo outputsDisplayPortHDMIVGADual Link DVISingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Optimus+-
Power managementno data8.0

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.64.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan+N/A
CUDA++

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.

K4000M 4.86
+1576%
GeForce 315M 0.29

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.

K4000M 1947
+1593%
GeForce 315M 115

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

K4000M 15362
+1286%
GeForce 315M 1109

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 HD41
+1950%
2−3
−1950%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11 0−1
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
Valorant 14−16 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Dota 2 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Fortnite 30−33
+2900%
1−2
−2900%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18 0−1
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+617%
6−7
−617%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+275%
4−5
−275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+220%
5−6
−220%
Valorant 14−16 0−1
World of Tanks 80−85
+592%
12−14
−592%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−12
+83.3%
6−7
−83.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+267%
3−4
−267%
Dota 2 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27
+243%
7−8
−243%
Forza Horizon 4 20−22
+567%
3−4
−567%
Forza Horizon 5 10−11 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45
+617%
6−7
−617%
Valorant 14−16 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 5−6 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1
World of Tanks 35−40
+1700%
2−3
−1700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 7−8 0−1
Metro Exodus 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Valorant 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+1300%
1−2
−1300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Fortnite 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 3−4 0−1
Valorant 5−6 0−1

This is how K4000M and GeForce 315M compete in popular games:

  • K4000M is 1950% faster in 1080p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the K4000M is 1500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • K4000M is ahead in 29 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.86 0.29
Recency 1 June 2012 5 January 2011
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 14 Watt

K4000M has a 1575.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 315M, on the other hand, has 614.3% lower power consumption.

The Quadro K4000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro K4000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce 315M is a mobile workstation one.

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 K4000M
Quadro K4000M
NVIDIA GeForce 315M
GeForce 315M

Other comparisons

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 14 votes

Rate Quadro K4000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 159 votes

Rate GeForce 315M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Quadro K4000M or GeForce 315M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.