GeForce GT 415M vs Radeon 530

Place in the ranking	815	1164
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	GCN (2011−2017)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Meso	N11P-GV
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	21 March 2017 (7 years ago)	3 September 2010 (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 cores	384	48
CUDA cores	no data	48
Core clock speed	1024 MHz	500 MHz
Number of transistors	1,550 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	12 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.50	4.000
Floating-point processing power	0.7864 gflops	0.096 gflops

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x8	PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data

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/GDDR5	(G)DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2250 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	25.6 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 Connectors	1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12.0	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	5.0	5.1
OpenGL	4.5	4.6
OpenCL	2.0	1.1
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. 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.

Radeon 530 2.64
+257%

GT 415M 0.74

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.

Radeon 530 1018
+256%

GT 415M 286

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Radeon 530 2327
+514%

GT 415M 379

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.

Radeon 530 5015
+568%

GT 415M 751

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

16
+300%

4−5

−300%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

5−6
+66.7%

3−4

−66.7%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	16 +220%	5−6 −220%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8 +167%	3−4 −167%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	10 +400%	2−3 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	35 +289%	9−10 −289%
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Metro Exodus	13 +333%	3−4 −333%
Red Dead Redemption 2	13	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	18 +200%	6−7 −200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +22.6%	30−35 −22.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	32 +300%	8−9 −300%
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Metro Exodus	5 +400%	1−2 −400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	12−14 +30%	10−11 −30%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +22.6%	30−35 −22.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	9−10 +80%	5−6 −80%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
Hitman 3	7−8 +40%	5−6 −40%
Horizon Zero Dawn	21−24 +90.9%	10−12 −90.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6 −66.7%	10−11 +66.7%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +22.6%	30−35 −22.6%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	4−5	0−1
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%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Hitman 3	8−9 +33.3%	6−7 −33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+100%

3−4

−100%

4K
High Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	1−2	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
+100%

2−3

−100%

This is how Radeon 530 and GT 415M compete in popular games:

Radeon 530 is 300% faster in 1080p

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

in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Radeon 530 is 1100% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 415M is 67% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Radeon 530 is ahead in 33 tests (94%)
GT 415M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	2.64	0.74
Recency	21 March 2017	3 September 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	28 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	50 Watt	12 Watt

Radeon 530 has a 256.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 415M, on the other hand, has 316.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon 530 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 415M in performance tests.

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