GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile vs GT 320M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 320M and GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 320M
2009
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.27

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile outperforms GT 320M by a whopping 9226% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1349217
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.3328.89
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code nameG96CGN20-P0-R 6 GB
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)6 January 2023 (2 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 cores322560
Core clock speed500 MHz1237 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1492 MHz
Number of transistors314 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate8.000no data
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs16no data

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 sizedlarge
InterfaceMXM-IIno data
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 typeGDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount512 MB6 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit96 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz12000 MHz
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 data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12_2
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.1-

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 HD0−171
1440p-0−136

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−488%
45−50
+488%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−3950%
81
+3950%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−488%
45−50
+488%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1500%
32
+1500%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−2000%
105
+2000%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−400%
40
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−1050%
23
+1050%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1517%
97
+1517%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1620%
86
+1620%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−2533%
150−160
+2533%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−1275%
55−60
+1275%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−1950%
80−85
+1950%
World of Tanks 12−14
−2058%
250−260
+2058%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 8−9
−488%
45−50
+488%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−850%
19
+850%
Far Cry 5 6−7
−1183%
75−80
+1183%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
−1420%
76
+1420%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−2533%
150−160
+2533%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−17400%
170−180
+17400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 9−10
−133%
21−24
+133%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
−950%
21−24
+950%
Far Cry 5 4−5
−1750%
70−75
+1750%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−1750%
37
+1750%
Valorant 4−5
−1600%
65−70
+1600%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−7600%
75−80
+7600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 0−1 24−27
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−700%
8−9
+700%
Dota 2 14−16
−193%
40−45
+193%
Valorant 0−1 30−35

Full HD
Low Preset

Elden Ring 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Dota 2 61
+0%
61
+0%
Elden Ring 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Fortnite 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 91
+0%
91
+0%
Metro Exodus 65−70
+0%
65−70
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Dota 2 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Valorant 100−110
+0%
100−110
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Elden Ring 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40
+0%
40
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
World of Tanks 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 57
+0%
57
+0%
Metro Exodus 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Elden Ring 20−22
+0%
20−22
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Fortnite 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is 17400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 6GB Mobile is ahead in 31 test (51%)
  • there's a draw in 30 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 25.18
Recency 15 June 2009 6 January 2023
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 6 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 60 Watt

GT 320M has 328.6% lower power consumption.

RTX 3050 6GB Mobile, on the other hand, has a 9225.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 1100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 587.5% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile 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 RTX 3050 6GB Mobile
GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile

Other comparisons

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.


3.3 130 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 690 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Mobile 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.