
NVS 310 vs GeForce GT 415M

NVS 310
Popular choices:

GeForce GT 415M
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - 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. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The NVS 310 is positioned at rank 305 and the GeForce GT 415M is on rank 311, so the NVS 310 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar NVS 310
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 415M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GT 415M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 4% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the NVS 310.
| Insight | NVS 310 | GeForce GT 415M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2013 / Kepler (2012−2018)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce GT 415M 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.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of NVS 310 and GeForce GT 415M

NVS 310
The NVS 310 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 4 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 902 MHz to 1033 MHz. It has 512 ×2 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 68W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 275 points.

GeForce GT 415M
The GeForce GT 415M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in April 1 2013. It features the Kepler architecture. The core clock speed is 549 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 45W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 286 points.
Graphics Performance
The NVS 310 scores 275 and the GeForce GT 415M reaches 286 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The NVS 310 is built on Maxwell while the GeForce GT 415M uses Kepler, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 512 (NVS 310) vs 384 (GeForce GT 415M). Raw compute: 1.058 TFLOPS ×2 (NVS 310) vs 0.4216 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 415M).
| Feature | NVS 310 | GeForce GT 415M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 275 | 286+4% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Kepler |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 512 ×2+33% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.058 TFLOPS ×2+151% | 0.4216 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 16 |
| TMUs | 32 ×2 | 32 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB+700% | 32 KB |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | NVS 310 | GeForce GT 415M |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (NVS 310) vs 0.25 MB (GeForce GT 415M) — the NVS 310 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | NVS 310 | GeForce GT 415M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (11_0) (NVS 310) vs 11.0 (GeForce GT 415M). OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.0. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | NVS 310 | GeForce GT 415M |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (11_0)+9% | 11.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6+15% | 4.0 |
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: Fermi NVENC (NVS 310) vs No (GeForce GT 415M). Decoder: VP4 vs PureVideo HD VP4. Supported codecs: H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 (NVS 310) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP (GeForce GT 415M).
| Feature | NVS 310 | GeForce GT 415M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | Fermi NVENC | No |
| Decoder | VP4 | PureVideo HD VP4 |
| Codecs | H.264,MPEG-2,VC-1 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1,MPEG-4 ASP |
Power & Dimensions
The NVS 310 draws 68W versus the GeForce GT 415M's 45W — a 40.7% difference. The GeForce GT 415M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (NVS 310) vs 350W (GeForce GT 415M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 145mm vs 0mm, occupying 1 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 75°C vs 75°C.
| Feature | NVS 310 | GeForce GT 415M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 68W | 45W-34% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 145mm | 0mm |
| Height | 69mm | 0mm |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 75°C | 75°C |
| Perf/Watt | 4.0 | 6.4+60% |
Value Analysis
The NVS 310 is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2013).
| Feature | NVS 310 | GeForce GT 415M |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $159 | — |
| Avg Price (30d) | $10 | — |
| Codename | GM107 | GK107 |
| Release | November 4 2015 | April 1 2013 |
| Ranking | #826 | #857 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















