Radeon RX 7900 XTX vs GeForce 320M

Place in the ranking	1225	7
Place by popularity	not in top-100	51
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	34.25
Power efficiency	1.61	15.63
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	C89	Navi 31
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 April 2010 (14 years ago)	3 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$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 cores	48	6144
Core clock speed	450 MHz	1929 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2498 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	57,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	355 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	959.2
Floating-point processing power	0.0912 TFLOPS	61.39 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	192
TMUs	16	384
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	96

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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	287 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	2x 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 type	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	24 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	960.0 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 Connectors	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1a, 2x DisplayPort 2.1, 1x USB Type-C
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.7
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3

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 7900 XTX 80.71
+14846%

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 7900 XTX 31028
+14746%

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 7900 XTX 148746
+7932%

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 HD	20 −1130%	246 +1130%
1440p	1−2 −16300%	164 +16300%
4K	0−1	104

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.06
1440p	no data	6.09
4K	no data	9.61

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −3467%	214 +3467%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −7967%	242 +7967%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −3917%	241 +3917%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −3767%	116 +3767%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −9967%	604 +9967%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −2920%	150−160 +2920%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −3567%	220 +3567%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −3367%	104 +3367%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −1657%	123 +1657%
Fortnite	0−1	300−350
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −8817%	535 +8817%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2588%	210−220 +2588%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −2920%	150−160 +2920%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −3380%	170−180 +3380%
World of Tanks	16−18 −1644%	270−280 +1644%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −3333%	206 +3333%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −3233%	100 +3233%
Far Cry 5	7−8 −2071%	150−160 +2071%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 −7750%	471 +7750%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 −2588%	210−220 +2588%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	3−4 −5733%	170−180 +5733%
World of Tanks	1−2 −51500%	500−550 +51500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −356%	146 +356%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2267%	71 +2267%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −3900%	160−170 +3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −5850%	238 +5850%
Valorant	5−6 −7720%	350−400 +7720%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −1140%	186 +1140%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −1140%	186 +1140%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	1−2 −20800%	200−210 +20800%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −1140%	186 +1140%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	90−95
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1700%	36 +1700%
Dota 2	14−16 −960%	159 +960%
Valorant	1−2 −22800%	220−230 +22800%

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring

225

+0%

225

+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Metro Exodus	169 +0%	169 +0%
Valorant	450−500 +0%	450−500 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Dota 2	183 +0%	183 +0%
Elden Ring	300−350 +0%	300−350 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	175 +0%	175 +0%
Metro Exodus	176 +0%	176 +0%
Valorant	450−500 +0%	450−500 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Dota 2	178 +0%	178 +0%
Valorant	450−500 +0%	450−500 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	165 +0%	165 +0%
Elden Ring	230−240 +0%	230−240 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	165 +0%	165 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	90−95 +0%	90−95 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	85−90 +0%	85−90 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	360 +0%	360 +0%
Metro Exodus	146 +0%	146 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	67 +0%	67 +0%
Elden Ring	120−130 +0%	120−130 +0%
Metro Exodus	108 +0%	108 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	60−65 +0%	60−65 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	43 +0%	43 +0%
Far Cry 5	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	197 +0%	197 +0%

This is how GeForce 320M and RX 7900 XTX compete in popular games:

RX 7900 XTX is 1130% faster in 1080p
RX 7900 XTX is 16300% faster in 1440p

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

in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 7900 XTX is 51500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RX 7900 XTX is ahead in 33 tests (54%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (46%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.54	80.71
Recency	1 April 2010	3 November 2022
Chip lithography	40 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	355 Watt

GeForce 320M has 1443.5% lower power consumption.

RX 7900 XTX, on the other hand, has a 14846.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon RX 7900 XTX 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 7900 XTX is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.