GeForce GT 415M vs Radeon R6 M255DX

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R6 M255DX and GeForce GT 415M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R6 M255DX
2014
1.57
+112%

R6 M255DX outperforms GT 415M by a whopping 112% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9641157
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data4.30
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameJetGF108
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2014 (10 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 cores32048
Core clock speed780 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed855 MHzno data
Number of transistors690 million585 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data12 Watt
Texture fill rate17.104.000
Floating-point processing power0.5472 TFLOPS0.096 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs208

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
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 SharedDDR3
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared512 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared800 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model5.15.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/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.

R6 M255DX 1.57
+112%
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.

R6 M255DX 605
+112%
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.

R6 M255DX 2198
+480%
GT 415M 379

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 HD10
+150%
4−5
−150%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+50%
6−7
−50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14
+20%
10−11
−20%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+9.7%
30−35
−9.7%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 8−9
+300%
2−3
−300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

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 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

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

This is how R6 M255DX and GT 415M compete in popular games:

  • R6 M255DX is 150% 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 R6 M255DX is 300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R6 M255DX is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.57 0.74
Recency 7 January 2014 3 September 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R6 M255DX has a 112.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R6 M255DX 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.

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 R6 M255DX
Radeon R6 M255DX
NVIDIA GeForce GT 415M
GeForce GT 415M

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.


2.8 16 votes

Rate Radeon R6 M255DX on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 25 votes

Rate GeForce GT 415M 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.