GeForce 315M vs Radeon HD 6520G

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon HD 6520G and GeForce 315M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

HD 6520G
2011
35 Watt
0.78
+160%

HD 6520G outperforms 315M by a whopping 160% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking11511329
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.531.47
ArchitectureTeraScale 2 (2009−2015)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameSumoGT218
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 December 2011 (13 years ago)5 January 2011 (13 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 cores32016
Core clock speed400 MHz606 MHz
Number of transistors1,178 million260 million
Manufacturing process technology32 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate6.4004.848
Floating-point processing power0.256 TFLOPS0.03878 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data73
ROPs84
TMUs168

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).

Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfaceIGPPCIe 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 typeSystem SharedGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedUp to 512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem SharedUp to 800 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidthno data12.8 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.

Power managementno data8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.2 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.04.1
OpenGL4.44.1
OpenCL1.21.1
VulkanN/AN/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.

HD 6520G 0.78
+160%
GeForce 315M 0.30

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.

HD 6520G 299
+160%
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.

HD 6520G 1678
+51.4%
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:

900p8
+167%
3−4
−167%
Full HD6
+200%
2−3
−200%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10.7%
27−30
−10.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10.7%
27−30
−10.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+50%
8−9
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9−10
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10.7%
27−30
−10.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1

1440p
High Preset

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

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how HD 6520G and GeForce 315M compete in popular games:

  • HD 6520G is 167% faster in 900p
  • HD 6520G is 200% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the HD 6520G is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • HD 6520G is ahead in 27 tests (93%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (7%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.78 0.30
Recency 7 December 2011 5 January 2011
Chip lithography 32 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 14 Watt

HD 6520G has a 160% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and a 25% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 315M, on the other hand, has 150% lower power consumption.

The Radeon HD 6520G is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 315M in performance tests.


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.


AMD Radeon HD 6520G
Radeon HD 6520G
NVIDIA GeForce 315M
GeForce 315M

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.


3.4 138 votes

Rate Radeon HD 6520G on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 157 votes

Rate GeForce 315M 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.