Radeon PRO W7800 vs GeForce 320M Mac Edition

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the rankingnot rated14
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data29.53
Power efficiencyno data19.71
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code nameC89Navi 31
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)13 April 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores484480
Core clock speed450 MHz1855 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2499 MHz
Number of transistors486 million57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200699.7
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS44.78 TFLOPS
ROPs8128
TMUs16280
Ray Tracing Coresno data70

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data280 mm
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data2x 8-pin

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared32 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2250 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data576.0 GB/s

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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependent3x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x mini-DisplayPort 2.1

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.7
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.2
VulkanN/A1.3

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 2010 13 April 2023
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 260 Watt

320M Mac Edition has 1030.4% lower power consumption.

PRO W7800, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 13 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 320M Mac Edition and Radeon PRO W7800. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 320M Mac Edition is a notebook card while Radeon PRO W7800 is a workstation one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce 320M Mac Edition
GeForce 320M Mac Edition
AMD Radeon PRO W7800
Radeon PRO W7800

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 7 votes

Rate GeForce 320M Mac Edition on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 31 vote

Rate Radeon PRO W7800 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.