NVIDIA
Quadro NVS 315 vs GeForce 920M
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
NVIDIA
GeForce 920M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 315 and GeForce 920M across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Quadro NVS 315 outperforms GeForce 920M by ~21% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+21%
Scores are normalized on the Head to Head scale. Higher is better. How is this calculated?H2HBench Data Quality
Low confidenceSpecifications: Field verification not recordedVerified gaming results: 0Estimated / unverified results: 32Price record updated: Sep 6, 2026
Limited verified data
H2HBench Verdict
Higher catalog score: Quadro NVS 315 (~21%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Quadro NVS 315
- Lower stated power consumption
- Higher catalog value index
- Recorded feature support: Not supported
Reasons to consider GeForce 920M
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 3.5 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIAPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3030
100100
10054
4343
Graphics card ranking
Positions 19–24of 30
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
GeForce 920M
109 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
30
30
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
28
28
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
26
26
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100
100
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
51Better
42
Specifications
The better numeric value is highlighted in green, taking the metric direction into account.
Release date
Device class
DirectX
Vulkan
OpenGL
Max monitors
Max resolution
USB Type-C
Recommended PSU
Length
Thickness
Architecture
Transistor count
Die size
Shader units / cores
TFLOPSBetter
Power consumptionBetter
Memory type
Power connector—
Compute API—
Launch price——
Clock speedBetter
Memory cache
Base clockBetter
Boost clockBetter
VRAMBetter
Memory frequencyBetter
Memory bus
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process nodeBetter
DisplayPort
Upscaling
HDMI
Gaming FPS
Available results are shown separately; missing data is not treated as zero.
The Gaming FPS section compares Quadro NVS 315 and GeForce 920M across curated H2H Lab game presets. The useful signal is not only average FPS, but also how each device behaves at 1440p and 4K, how memory capacity and bus width affect heavy textures, and whether the game engine favors raster performance, ray tracing, or driver maturity.
Quadro NVS 315GeForce 920M
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
154 FPS
153 FPS
1080p Ultra
108 FPS
108 FPS
1440p Ultra
58 FPS
58 FPS
4K Ultra
21 FPS
21 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Quadro NVS 315154 FPSGeForce 920M153 FPSQuadro NVS 315108 FPSGeForce 920M108 FPSQuadro NVS 31558 FPSGeForce 920M58 FPSQuadro NVS 31521 FPSGeForce 920M21 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Quadro NVS 31599 FPSGeForce 920M99 FPSQuadro NVS 31585 FPSGeForce 920M85 FPSQuadro NVS 31542 FPSGeForce 920M42 FPSQuadro NVS 31514 FPSGeForce 920M14 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Quadro NVS 315125 FPSGeForce 920M125 FPSQuadro NVS 31581 FPSGeForce 920M81 FPSQuadro NVS 31552 FPSGeForce 920M52 FPSQuadro NVS 31531 FPSGeForce 920M31 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyQuadro NVS 31581 FPSGeForce 920M81 FPSQuadro NVS 31568 FPSGeForce 920M68 FPSQuadro NVS 31538 FPSGeForce 920M37 FPSQuadro NVS 31514 FPSGeForce 920M14 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 10030300%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 10030326%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 10034340%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 10043430%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001001000%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
H2H AI workload indices
Estimated workload profiles based on available performance and memory data.
H2H Image Generation IndexH2H Index / 10036360%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 10035350%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 10034340%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 10037370%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 10034340%
These are versioned H2H calculated indices derived from normalized catalog data. They are not results from a third-party benchmark.
Graphics APIs, SDKs and upscaling
DirectX12.011.0
Vulkan1.21.2
OpenGL4.64.6
UpscalingNot supportedNot supported
Compute API—OpenCL 3.0, CUDA 3.5
Architecture and release
ArchitectureNot publicly specifiedMaxwell
Process node40 nm28 nmBetter
Release date20132015
Device classProfMobile
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified1020 million
Die sizeNot publicly specified87 mm²
Shader units / coresNot publicly specified384
Base clock523 MHz954 MHzBetter
Boost clock523 MHz954 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 3.0 x8
LengthVaries by boardOEM dependent
ThicknessVaries by boardIGP
Recommended PSUVaries by boardOEM dependent
Power connector—None
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentOEM dependent
DisplayPortBoard dependentOEM dependent
USB Type-CNoOEM dependent
Max monitorsVaries by boardOEM dependent
Max resolutionVaries by boardDepends on host system
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM1 GB DDR32 GB DDR3Better
Memory typeDDR3GDDR5 / DDR3
Memory bus64 bit64 bit
TFLOPS0.0260.733Better
Other comparisons
Reviews and questions
Explain this comparison
Beyond percentages: causes, relevant specifications, and practical impact behind every chart.
What AI will explain
Overall score, radar, FPS, synthetic tests, specifications, efficiency, and value.
Evidence details
Data coverage
- Verified gaming results
- 0
- Verified synthetic results
- 0
- Games with verified results
- 0
- Verified community results
- 0
- Estimated / unverified results
- 32
- Specifications
- 0 / 66
Calculated scores · How is this calculated?
Scores use the catalog model and may include estimated inputs. Open each score to see its origin and the methodology.
clamp(round(performance × 0.7 + (efficiency ?? 50) × 0.2 + (value is missing ? 0 : (value − 50) × 0.2)), 0, 100)Price evidence · View sources (3)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (2)
- · Record updated: products
- · Record updated: products
Why you can trust this comparison
Origin and confidence are evaluated from the evidence attached to each value. Unverified results are identified, and specification, benchmark and price dates remain separate.
Owner experiences
Real builds, results, and community feedback.
Moderator reviewedHelpful to the communityExpert badges
Frequently asked comparison questions
Short recommendations based on performance, memory, power consumption, and intended use.
01Which is better for gaming: Quadro NVS 315 or GeForce 920M?+
Quadro NVS 315 has the higher overall gaming score, while Quadro NVS 315 offers the better price-to-performance ratio. The final choice depends on resolution and settings.
02Which is better for streaming?+
Quadro NVS 315 is the stronger streaming choice thanks to performance, hardware encoding, and application support. Check AV1, H.264, and HEVC support before buying.
03Which is better for Blender?+
Quadro NVS 315 is generally the better option for Blender and GPU rendering. Rendering-engine support and available VRAM also matter.
04Which is better for video editing?+
Quadro NVS 315 offers more overall performance, while Quadro NVS 315 offers more memory headroom. Codecs, hardware encoders, and editor optimization can change the result.
05Which is better for neural networks and AI?+
Quadro NVS 315 is the more practical option for local AI workloads. VRAM capacity, compute libraries, and framework compatibility are especially important.
06Which is better for 1080p?+
Quadro NVS 315 is the most rational 1080p choice, where high frame rates and cost per frame matter most.
07Which is better for 1440p?+
Quadro NVS 315 leads in combined 1440p performance. Quadro NVS 315 can be preferable for heavy textures and games with high VRAM usage.
08Which is better for 4K?+
Quadro NVS 315 is preferable for 4K, where total performance, memory bandwidth, and VRAM capacity have the greatest impact.
09Which is better for a quiet PC?+
Quadro NVS 315 is easier to use in a quiet build because of its lower estimated power and thermal load. Actual noise depends on the specific cooler.
10Which is better without replacing the power supply?+
Quadro NVS 315 is the safer candidate because its stated power consumption is lower. Verify PSU wattage, age, and power connectors.
11Is it worth upgrading from the previous generation?+
Consider upgrading to Quadro NVS 315 if your current device no longer delivers the required FPS, memory capacity, or feature support. A gain below 15–20% is usually worth waiting for a price cut.