GeForce 7950 GX2 vs GeForce 315

CPU

GPU

GeForce 7950 GX2

2016Core: 795 MHzBoost: 861 MHz

GeForce 315

2020Core: 747 MHzBoost: 937 MHz

Performance Spectrum - GPU

GeForce 7950 GX2

202

+3.1%

GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile

GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU

GeForce 315

196

0.0%

GeForce RTX 4050 Mobile

GeForce RTX 3080 Ti Laptop GPU

About G3D Mark

G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.

Value Upgrade Path

This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. The GeForce 7950 GX2 is positioned at rank #729 in our cost-efficiency ranking, representing a Lower cost-benefit for your build. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.•
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce 7950 GX2

#719

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

31932%

#721

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

28947%

#722

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

28871%

#726

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

26253%

#727

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

26074%

#729

GeForce 7950 GX2

MSRP: $599|Avg: $80

100%

#730

Mobility Radeon X1450

MSRP: $100|Avg: $10

97%

#731

MOBILITY RADEON X1800

MSRP: $399|Avg: $50

97%

#732

MOBILITY RADEON 7000 IGP

MSRP: $20|Avg: $5

88%

#733

MOBILITY RADEON 9550

MSRP: $100|Avg: $10

88%

#734

GeForce 6200

MSRP: $129|Avg: $10

85%

#736

GeForce FX 5500

MSRP: $37|Avg: $30

65%

#737

MOBILITY RADEON 9800

MSRP: $229|Avg: $25

59%

#738

RADEON 9500

MSRP: $179|Avg: $30

59%

#739

RADEON X850 XT

MSRP: $499|Avg: $50

47%

#740

RADEON 9800

MSRP: $399|Avg: $399

44%

#742

RADEON 9000

MSRP: $49|Avg: $20

29%

#743

RADEON 9200 SE

MSRP: $30|Avg: $15

29%

#744

MOBILITY RADEON 7500

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

24%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce 315 uses modern memory architecture. The GeForce 315 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The GeForce 7950 GX2 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The GeForce 7950 GX2 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.1% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (1 GB vs 512 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 315.

Insight	GeForce 7950 GX2	GeForce 315
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+3.1%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.1%)
Longevity	🛑Obsolete Architecture (2016 / Maxwell (2014−2017))	Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	Normal Efficiency
Case Fit	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce 7950 GX2 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.

Performance Check

Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.

Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.

GeForce 7950 GX2 Benchmark Check

GeForce 315 Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

No prediction data available

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

No prediction data available

Valorant

No prediction data available

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of GeForce 7950 GX2 and GeForce 315

GeForce 7950 GX2

The GeForce 7950 GX2 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in June 28 2016. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 795 MHz to 861 MHz. It has 512 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 23W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 202 points.

GeForce 315

The GeForce 315 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 10 2020. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 747 MHz to 937 MHz. It has 640 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 20W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 196 points.

⚡

Graphics Performance

The GeForce 7950 GX2 scores 202 and the GeForce 315 reaches 196 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 7950 GX2 is built on Maxwell while the GeForce 315 uses Pascal, both on 28 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 512 (GeForce 7950 GX2) vs 640 (GeForce 315). Raw compute: 0.8817 TFLOPS (GeForce 7950 GX2) vs 1.199 TFLOPS (GeForce 315). Boost clocks: 861 MHz vs 937 MHz.

Feature	GeForce 7950 GX2	GeForce 315
G3D Mark Score	202+3%	196
Architecture	Maxwell	Pascal
Process Node	28 nm	14 nm
Shading Units	512	640+25%
Compute (TFLOPS)	0.8817 TFLOPS	1.199 TFLOPS+36%
Boost Clock	861 MHz	937 MHz+9%
ROPs	8	16+100%
TMUs	32	32
L1 Cache	256 KB+7%	240 KB
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	GeForce 7950 GX2	GeForce 315
Upscaling Tech	FSR 1.0 (Software)	FSR 1.0 (Software)
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	Standard	Standard

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce 7950 GX2 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the GeForce 315 has 512 MB. The GeForce 7950 GX2 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 7950 GX2) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce 315) — the GeForce 7950 GX2 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce 7950 GX2	GeForce 315
VRAM Capacity	1 GB+100%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	Unknown
Bus Width	128-bit	128-bit
L2 Cache	1 MB+100%	0.5 MB

🖥️

Display & API Support

DirectX support: 9.0c (GeForce 7950 GX2) vs 10.1 (GeForce 315). OpenGL: 2.1 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	GeForce 7950 GX2	GeForce 315
DirectX	9.0c	10.1+12%
OpenGL	2.1	3.3+57%
Max Displays	2	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 7950 GX2) vs None (GeForce 315). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP1) vs PureVideo VP4. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,WMV (GeForce 7950 GX2) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2 (GeForce 315).

Feature	GeForce 7950 GX2	GeForce 315
Encoder	None	None
Decoder	PureVideo HD (VP1)	PureVideo VP4
Codecs	H.264,MPEG-2,WMV	H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 Part 2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce 7950 GX2 draws 23W versus the GeForce 315's 20W — a 14% difference. The GeForce 315 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 7950 GX2) vs 350W (GeForce 315). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy. Card length: 229mm vs 168mm, occupying 2 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 85 vs 80°C.

Feature	GeForce 7950 GX2	GeForce 315
TDP	23W	20W-13%
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	Legacy	Legacy
Length	229mm	168mm
Height	111mm	—
Slots	2	1-50%
Temp (Load)	85	80°C-6%
Perf/Watt	8.8	9.8+11%

💰

Value Analysis

The GeForce 7950 GX2 launched at $599 MSRP and currently averages $80, while the GeForce 315 launched at $0 and now averages $0. The GeForce 315 costs 100+% less ($80 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 2.5 (GeForce 7950 GX2) vs Infinity (GeForce 315) — the GeForce 315 offers Infinity% better value. The GeForce 315 is the newer GPU (2020 vs 2016).