GeForce 320M vs GT 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 320M and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 320M
2009
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.27

320M outperforms GT 320M by a whopping 100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13461221
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.321.61
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameG96CC89
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 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 cores3248
Core clock speed500 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors314 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate8.0007.200
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPS0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs1616

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-IIPCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount512 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth25.6 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model4.04.1
OpenGL3.33.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.1-

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.

GT 320M 0.27
GeForce 320M 0.54
+100%

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.

GT 320M 105
GeForce 320M 209
+99%

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.

GT 320M 1205
GeForce 320M 1852
+53.7%

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 HD8−9
−100%
16
+100%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Hitman 3 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−25%
10−11
+25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
−7.1%
30−33
+7.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 1−2
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

1440p
Epic Preset

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

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GT 320M and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 320M is 100% 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 320M is 50% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 320M is ahead in 26 tests (76%)
  • there's a draw in 8 tests (24%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 0.54
Recency 15 June 2009 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 55 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 23 Watt

GT 320M has 64.3% lower power consumption.

GeForce 320M, on the other hand, has a 100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce 320M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.


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 GT 320M
GeForce GT 320M
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M

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.


3.4 126 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 52 votes

Rate GeForce 320M 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.