Radeon Vega 7 vs R5 M315
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M315 and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega 7 outperforms R5 M315 by a whopping 503% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1052 | 543 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 11.40 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | Meso | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 5 May 2015 (9 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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 | 448 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 970 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 23.28 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.745 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 28 |
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 support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | IGP |
| 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 | DDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.0 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | - | 1.2 |
| Mantle | + | - |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 | 3−4
−700%
| 24
+700%
|
| 1440p | 4−5
−525%
| 25
+525%
|
| 4K | 2−3
−800%
| 18
+800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−500%
|
18
+500%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2700%
|
28
+2700%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−367%
|
14
+367%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−3050%
|
63
+3050%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−429%
|
37
+429%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−178%
|
24−27
+178%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−127%
|
75−80
+127%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2200%
|
23
+2200%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 27−30
−115%
|
58
+115%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−233%
|
10
+233%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1250%
|
27
+1250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−400%
|
35
+400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 17 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
−1200%
|
13
+1200%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−156%
|
23
+156%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−217%
|
19
+217%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−121%
|
73
+121%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−2000%
|
21
+2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−75%
|
14−16
+75%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
−200%
|
9
+200%
|
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−494%
|
95−100
+494%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
−286%
|
27
+286%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10
−178%
|
24−27
+178%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−117%
|
13
+117%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
+32%
|
25
−32%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14
+600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 7−8
−671%
|
50−55
+671%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−457%
|
35−40
+457%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−1500%
|
48
+1500%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−800%
|
9−10
+800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14−16
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−467%
|
16−18
+467%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−450%
|
10−12
+450%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−317%
|
25
+317%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Dota 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how R5 M315 and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 700% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 525% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 800% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the R5 M315 is 32% faster.
- in Fortnite, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the Vega 7 is 3050% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M315 is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 44 tests (71%)
- there's a draw in 17 tests (27%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.24 | 7.48 |
| Recency | 5 May 2015 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 7 nm |
Vega 7 has a 503.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M315 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
