Radeon R5 A320 vs GeForce 8800 GT
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1035 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.02 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.72 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) |
| GPU code name | G92 | Jet |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | 29 October 2007 (17 years ago) | 2015 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 112 | 320 |
| Core clock speed | 600 MHz | 750 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 825 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 754 million | 690 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | no data |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 33.60 | 16.50 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.336 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 56 | 20 |
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 support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
| Length | 229 mm | no data |
| Height | Single Slot | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | no data |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 900 MHz | 2 GB/s |
| Memory bandwidth | 57.6 GB/s | 16 GB/s |
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 | Dual Link DVIHDTV | Portable Device Dependent |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| High Dynamic-Range Lighting (HDRR) | 128bit | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 (11_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.5 (5.1) |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 (1.2) |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.170 |
| CUDA | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 28 nm |
R5 A320 has a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between GeForce 8800 GT and Radeon R5 A320. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
