GeForce GT 415M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

Place in the ranking	656	1155
Place by popularity	30	not in top-100
Power efficiency	20.91	4.30
Architecture	Vega (2017−2020)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	Vega Raven Ridge	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	26 October 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	512	48
Core clock speed	no data	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1200 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	no data	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	12 Watt
Texture fill rate	no data	4.000
Floating-point processing power	no data	0.096 TFLOPS
ROPs	no data	4
TMUs	no data	8

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	no data	PCIe 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 type	no data	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	no data	512 MB
Memory bus width	no data	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	no data	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	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

no data

No outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12_1	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	no data	5.1
OpenGL	no data	4.6
OpenCL	no data	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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 4.50
+508%

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 1737
+507%

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.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 3557
+839%

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 HD	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
4K	10 +900%	1−2 −900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

9
+200%

3−4

−200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	15 +200%	5−6 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Battlefield 5	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	9 +200%	3−4 −200%
Far Cry 5	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	58 +544%	9−10 −544%
Hitman 3	9 +80%	5−6 −80%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +173%	10−12 −173%
Metro Exodus	22 +633%	3−4 −633%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +217%	6−7 −217%
Watch Dogs: Legion	65 +110%	30−35 −110%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	30 +500%	5−6 −500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	10 +233%	3−4 −233%
Cyberpunk 2077	6 +100%	3−4 −100%
Far Cry 5	10 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry New Dawn	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Forza Horizon 4	52 +550%	8−9 −550%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	30−33 +173%	10−12 −173%
Metro Exodus	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +167%	6−7 −167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	31 +210%	10−11 −210%
Watch Dogs: Legion	55 +77.4%	30−35 −77.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +60%	5−6 −60%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Cyberpunk 2077	5 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry 5	7 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	23 +667%	3−4 −667%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	15 +36.4%	10−12 −36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	14 +133%	6−7 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	8 −25%	10−11 +25%
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +45.2%	30−35 −45.2%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	8−9	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Forza Horizon 4	8−9 +700%	1−2 −700%
Hitman 3	9−10 +50%	6−7 −50%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 +1300%	2−3 −1300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

8−9
+167%

3−4

−167%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	3−4	0−1
Hitman 3	1−2	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4	0−1
Metro Exodus	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4 +300%	1−2 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	2−3	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

5−6
+150%

2−3

−150%

This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GT 415M compete in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 750% faster in 1080p
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 900% faster in 4K

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

in Far Cry New Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 1700% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 415M is 25% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
GT 415M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	4.50	0.74
Recency	26 October 2017	3 September 2010
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	15 Watt	12 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 508.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

GT 415M, on the other hand, has 25% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) 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.