ATI Radeon HD 3200 vs GeForce 320M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1218not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.62no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameC89RS780
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)4 March 2008 (16 years ago)

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 cores4840
Core clock speed450 MHz494 MHz
Number of transistors486 million180 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Wattno data
Texture fill rate7.2001.976
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS0.03952 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs164

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 dataIGP
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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model4.14.1
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCLN/A1.0
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

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



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
+155%
ATI HD 3200 82

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce 320M 1852
+2172%
ATI HD 3200 82

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 2010 4 March 2008
Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm

GeForce 320M has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 320M and Radeon HD 3200. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 320M is a notebook card while Radeon HD 3200 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
ATI Radeon HD 3200
Radeon HD 3200

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
3.3 81 vote

Rate Radeon HD 3200 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.