Quadro RTX 8000 vs GeForce 320M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 320M with Quadro RTX 8000, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 320M
2010
23 Watt
0.54

RTX 8000 outperforms 320M by a whopping 9152% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking121560
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data1.87
Power efficiency1.6813.73
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Turing (2018−2022)
GPU code nameC89TU102
Market segmentDesktopWorkstation
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)13 August 2018 (6 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$9,999

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 cores484608
Core clock speed450 MHz1395 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1770 MHz
Number of transistors486 million18,600 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt260 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200509.8
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS16.31 TFLOPS
ROPs896
TMUs16288
Tensor Coresno data576
Ray Tracing Coresno data72

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 3.0 x16
Lengthno data267 mm
WidthIGP2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x 6-pin + 1x 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 Shared48 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared384 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1750 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data672.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-

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 outputs4x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-7.5

Synthetic benchmark performance

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


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 320M 0.54
RTX 8000 49.96
+9152%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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
RTX 8000 19278
+9124%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD21
−8948%
1900−1950
+8948%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−8650%
350−400
+8650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−8900%
900−950
+8900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−9067%
550−600
+9067%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−9067%
2750−2800
+9067%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−8650%
350−400
+8650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−8900%
900−950
+8900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−9067%
550−600
+9067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−8900%
900−950
+8900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−9067%
2750−2800
+9067%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−8650%
350−400
+8650%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%
Hitman 3 5−6
−8900%
450−500
+8900%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−8900%
900−950
+8900%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−9067%
550−600
+9067%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−8900%
900−950
+8900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−9067%
2750−2800
+9067%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Hitman 3 6−7
−9067%
550−600
+9067%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−8900%
270−280
+8900%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−8900%
90−95
+8900%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−8900%
180−190
+8900%

This is how GeForce 320M and RTX 8000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX 8000 is 8948% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 49.96
Recency 1 April 2010 13 August 2018
Chip lithography 40 nm 12 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 260 Watt

GeForce 320M has 1030.4% lower power consumption.

RTX 8000, on the other hand, has a 9151.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 233.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Quadro RTX 8000 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 320M is a desktop card while Quadro RTX 8000 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
GeForce 320M
NVIDIA Quadro RTX 8000
Quadro RTX 8000

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 52 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 447 votes

Rate Quadro RTX 8000 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.