GeForce 6800 vs 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking1226not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGT2xx (2009−2012)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameMCP89NV41
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)8 November 2004 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$39.99

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores32no data
Core clock speed450 MHz325 MHz
Number of transistors486 million190 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Wattno data
Texture fill rate7.2003.900
Floating-point performance0.0912 gflopsno data

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 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataDDR
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared256 MB
Memory bus widthno data256 Bit
Memory clock speedno data600 MBps
Memory bandwidthno data19.2 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)9.0c (9_3)
Shader Model4.13.0
OpenGL3.32.0 (full) 2.1 (partial)
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 320M 209
+86.6%
GeForce 6800 112

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 2010 8 November 2004
Chip lithography 40 nm 130 nm

GeForce 320M has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 320M and GeForce 6800. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 320M is a notebook card while GeForce 6800 is a desktop 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
GeForce 320M
NVIDIA GeForce 6800
GeForce 6800

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.


3.5 51 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 86 votes

Rate GeForce 6800 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.