Radeon R5 A255 vs GeForce 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1317not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.51no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)GCN 3.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code nameC89Topaz
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 April 2010 (16 years ago)2014 (12 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 cores48384
Core clock speed450 MHz925 MHz
Boost clock speedno data940 MHz
Number of transistors486 million1,550 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Wattno data
Texture fill rate7.20022.56
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPSno data
ROPs88
TMUs1624

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 x8

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 SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared1 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared4 GB/s
Memory bandwidthno data64 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_0)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.1
VulkanN/A1.2.170

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 40 nm 28 nm

R5 A255 has a 43% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 320M and Radeon R5 A255. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 320M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R5 A255 is a desktop one.

Other comparisons

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 68 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon R5 A255 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 320M or Radeon R5 A255, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.