NVIDIA
Quadro NVS 315 vs Radeon HD 6970
Full comparison of specs, performance and benchmarks
AMD
HD 6970
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro NVS 315 and HD 6970 across specs and all relevant benchmarks.
↗Quadro NVS 315 outperforms HD 6970 by ~19% on the catalog index; this is not a measured FPS gain.+19%
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 (~19%)
The score difference is not a measured FPS improvement.
Reasons to consider Quadro NVS 315
- Lower stated power consumption
- Recorded feature support: Not supported
Reasons to consider HD 6970
- Higher catalog performance index
- More graphics memory
- Lower recorded market price
- Recorded feature support: OpenCL 1.2 · Not supported
Catalog metrics radar
Axes with missing data are hidden; every value uses a fixed scale.
NVIDIA
AMDPerformance
Efficiency
Price / performance
Memory capacity
3034
10045
100100
4356
Graphics card ranking
Positions 19–24of 30
Which should you choose?
Two practical conclusions based on community votes and gaming value.
Radeon HD 6970
60 likesHead to Head visitors currently choose this model more often.
Radeon HD 6970
Price $18.00Based on catalog performance per unit of current market price, not measured FPS.
Overview
Scores are calculated from specifications, performance, and efficiency.
GamesDirectX, OpenCL, and Vulkan performance
30
34Better
Professional applications3D modeling, video editing, and rendering
28
31Better
AI and machine learningMachine-learning and AI capabilities
26
28Better
Power efficiencyPower consumption across workloads
100Better
45
Head to Head scoreOverall catalog score
51Better
43
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 busBetter
Memory bandwidthBetter
Interface
Power consumptionBetter
Process node
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 HD 6970 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 315HD 6970
Verified externalEstimatedSources ↗
Counter-Strike 2
1080p High
154 FPS
173 FPS
1080p Ultra
108 FPS
118 FPS
1440p Ultra
58 FPS
64 FPS
4K Ultra
21 FPS
24 FPS
Counter-Strike 2Quadro NVS 315154 FPSHD 6970173 FPSQuadro NVS 315108 FPSHD 6970118 FPSQuadro NVS 31558 FPSHD 697064 FPSQuadro NVS 31521 FPSHD 697024 FPS
Cyberpunk 2077Quadro NVS 31599 FPSHD 6970112 FPSQuadro NVS 31585 FPSHD 697093 FPSQuadro NVS 31542 FPSHD 697047 FPSQuadro NVS 31514 FPSHD 697016 FPS
Forza Horizon 5Quadro NVS 315125 FPSHD 6970141 FPSQuadro NVS 31581 FPSHD 697089 FPSQuadro NVS 31552 FPSHD 697058 FPSQuadro NVS 31531 FPSHD 697035 FPS
Hogwarts LegacyQuadro NVS 31581 FPSHD 697091 FPSQuadro NVS 31568 FPSHD 697074 FPSQuadro NVS 31538 FPSHD 697042 FPSQuadro NVS 31514 FPSHD 697016 FPS
H2H workload indices
Comparable internal indices on a fixed 0–100 scale.
H2H Raster IndexH2H Index / 100303413%
H2H Compute IndexH2H Index / 100303721%
H2H Rendering IndexH2H Index / 100344016%
H2H Memory Workload IndexH2H Index / 100435626%
H2H Efficiency IndexH2H Index / 1001004576%
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 / 100364420%
H2H ML Training IndexH2H Index / 100354321%
H2H Inference IndexH2H Index / 100344016%
H2H Local LLM IndexH2H Index / 100374622%
H2H Computer Vision IndexH2H Index / 100344016%
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
Vulkan1.2Not supported
OpenGL4.64.4
UpscalingNot supportedNot supported
Compute API—OpenCL 1.2
Architecture and release
ArchitectureNot publicly specifiedTeraScale 3
Process node40 nm40 nm
Release date20132010
Device classProfDesktop
GPU cores, die and clocks
Transistor countNot publicly specified2640 million
Die sizeNot publicly specified389 mm²
Shader units / coresNot publicly specified1536
Base clock523 MHz880 MHzBetter
Boost clock523 MHz880 MHzBetter
Board size, power and compatibility
InterfacePCIe 2x16PCIe 2x16
LengthVaries by board286 mm
ThicknessVaries by boardDual-slot
Recommended PSUVaries by board600 W
Power connector—6+8 pin
Display outputs and limits
HDMIBoard dependentHDMI 1.4a
DisplayPortBoard dependentmini-DisplayPort 1.2
USB Type-CNoNo
Max monitorsVaries by board5
Max resolutionVaries by board4096 × 2160
Memory and compute throughput
VRAM1 GB DDR32 GB GDDR5Better
Memory typeDDR3GDDR5
Memory bus64 bit256 bitBetter
TFLOPS0.0262.703Better
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 / 67
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 (5)
Verified community results
No verified community benchmarks yet.
Reviewed by
No individual editorial review is recorded for this comparison.
Comparison history
Show recorded changes (3)
- · Record updated: products
- · 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 HD 6970?+
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.