NVS 315 vs Radeon RX 460 Mobile

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX 460 Mobile with NVS 315, including specs and performance data.

RX 460 Mobile
2016
4 GB GDDR5, 75 Watt
10.22
+1036%

RX 460 Mobile outperforms NVS 315 by a whopping 1036% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4351131
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.03
ArchitecturePolaris (2016−2019)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code namePolaris 11 / Baffin XTGF119
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date8 August 2016 (8 years ago)10 March 2013 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$86 $159

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores89648
Core clock speedno data523 MHz
Boost clock speed1180 MHzno data
Number of transistors3,000 million292 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt19 Watt
Texture fill rate66.084.184
Floating-point processing power2.115 gflops0.1004 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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data145 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeGDDR5DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed6000 MHz1750 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s14 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputs1x DMS-59

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-2.1

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 HD34
+1600%
2−3
−1600%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Hitman 3 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+1275%
4−5
−1275%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+1550%
2−3
−1550%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+1160%
5−6
−1160%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Far Cry New Dawn 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Hitman 3 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+1275%
4−5
−1275%
Metro Exodus 30−35
+1500%
2−3
−1500%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+1550%
2−3
−1550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30
+1250%
2−3
−1250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+1160%
5−6
−1160%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 24−27
+1100%
2−3
−1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+1500%
1−2
−1500%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+1050%
2−3
−1050%
Forza Horizon 4 65−70
+1240%
5−6
−1240%
Hitman 3 18−20
+1800%
1−2
−1800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 55−60
+1275%
4−5
−1275%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 30−35
+1550%
2−3
−1550%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 17
+1600%
1−2
−1600%
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+1160%
5−6
−1160%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 27−30
+1300%
2−3
−1300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 20−22
+1900%
1−2
−1900%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 10−11 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Far Cry 5 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+1400%
3−4
−1400%
Hitman 3 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn 21−24
+2000%
1−2
−2000%
Metro Exodus 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 60−65
+1180%
5−6
−1180%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+1600%
1−2
−1600%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 9−10 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 7−8 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 40−45
+1367%
3−4
−1367%
Metro Exodus 8−9 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7 0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+1200%
1−2
−1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11 0−1

This is how RX 460 Mobile and NVS 315 compete in popular games:

  • RX 460 Mobile is 1600% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.22 0.90
Recency 8 August 2016 10 March 2013
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 19 Watt

RX 460 Mobile has a 1035.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

NVS 315, on the other hand, has 294.7% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 460 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 315 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 460 Mobile is a notebook card while NVS 315 is a workstation one.


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 RX 460 Mobile
Radeon RX 460 Mobile
NVIDIA NVS 315
NVS 315

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 15 votes

Rate Radeon RX 460 Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 172 votes

Rate NVS 315 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.