Radeon RX 6800 XT vs GeForce 320M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 320M with Radeon RX 6800 XT, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 320M
2010
23 Watt
0.54

RX 6800 XT outperforms 320M by a whopping 11919% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking122028
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data50.50
Power efficiency1.6415.09
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)
GPU code nameC89Navi 21
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)28 October 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$649

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 MHz1825 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2250 MHz
Number of transistors486 million26,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt300 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200648.0
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS20.74 TFLOPS
ROPs8128
TMUs16288
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 4.0 x16
Lengthno data267 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 Shared16 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared256 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data512.0 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 outputs1x HDMI, 2x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.1
VulkanN/A1.2

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
RX 6800 XT 64.90
+11919%

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
RX 6800 XT 25034
+11878%

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
RX 6800 XT 96516
+5111%

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 HD20
−920%
204
+920%
1440p1−2
−14300%
144
+14300%
4K0−193

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data3.18
1440pno data4.51
4Kno data6.98

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4067%
120−130
+4067%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−3250%
130−140
+3250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−3767%
110−120
+3767%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4067%
120−130
+4067%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−15600%
150−160
+15600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2540%
132
+2540%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−2300%
240−250
+2300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−4367%
260−270
+4367%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−930%
309
+930%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−3250%
130−140
+3250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−3767%
110−120
+3767%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4067%
120−130
+4067%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−15600%
150−160
+15600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2620%
136
+2620%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−2300%
240−250
+2300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−5817%
355
+5817%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−1270%
130−140
+1270%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−930%
309
+930%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−3250%
130−140
+3250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−3767%
110−120
+3767%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−4067%
120−130
+4067%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2340%
122
+2340%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−2690%
279
+2690%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−4933%
302
+4933%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−1500%
160
+1500%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−273%
112
+273%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−10100%
100−110
+10100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 75−80
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−6500%
65−70
+6500%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−7500%
75−80
+7500%
Hitman 3 6−7
−1800%
114
+1800%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−7067%
215
+7067%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−31300%
314
+31300%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−3767%
116
+3767%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−5100%
50−55
+5100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 65

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−3700%
76
+3700%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 158
+0%
158
+0%
Battlefield 5 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 122
+0%
122
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 135
+0%
135
+0%
Battlefield 5 200−210
+0%
200−210
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%
Metro Exodus 144
+0%
144
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 118
+0%
118
+0%
Far Cry 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 120
+0%
120
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 98
+0%
98
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 270−280
+0%
270−280
+0%
Metro Exodus 112
+0%
112
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 222
+0%
222
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Hitman 3 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 220−230
+0%
220−230
+0%
Metro Exodus 126
+0%
126
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 110
+0%
110
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 133
+0%
133
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 49
+0%
49
+0%

This is how GeForce 320M and RX 6800 XT compete in popular games:

  • RX 6800 XT is 920% faster in 1080p
  • RX 6800 XT is 14300% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6800 XT is 31300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RX 6800 XT is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 64.90
Recency 1 April 2010 28 October 2020
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 300 Watt

GeForce 320M has 1204.3% lower power consumption.

RX 6800 XT, on the other hand, has a 11918.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 6800 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 320M is a notebook card while Radeon RX 6800 XT 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
AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Radeon RX 6800 XT

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
4.3 3478 votes

Rate Radeon RX 6800 XT 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.