ATI Radeon HD 3200 vs GeForce 820M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 820M with Radeon HD 3200, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 820M
2013
1 GB DDR3, 15 Watt
1.28
+510%

820M outperforms ATI HD 3200 by a whopping 510% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10351381
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.85no data
ArchitectureFermi 2.0 (2010−2014)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGF117RS780
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date27 November 2013 (11 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 cores9640
Core clock speed625 MHz494 MHz
Number of transistors585 million180 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Wattno data
Texture fill rate10.001.976
Floating-point processing power0.24 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).

Bus supportPCI Express 2.0no data
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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data
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

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.11.0
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

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 820M 1.28
+510%
ATI HD 3200 0.21

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 820M 494
+502%
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 820M 5106
+6164%
ATI HD 3200 82

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 HD15
+400%
3
−400%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+75%
8−9
−75%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how GeForce 820M and ATI HD 3200 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 820M is 400% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the GeForce 820M is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 820M is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.28 0.21
Recency 27 November 2013 4 March 2008
Chip lithography 28 nm 65 nm

GeForce 820M has a 509.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce 820M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 3200 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 820M 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 820M
GeForce 820M
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.


3.1 833 votes

Rate GeForce 820M 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.