GeForce4 MX 440 vs GeForce GT 320M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 320M with GeForce4 MX 440, including specs and performance data.

GT 320M
2009
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.27
+2600%

GT 320M outperforms GeForce4 MX 440 by a whopping 2600% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13441508
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.34no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Celsius (1999−2005)
GPU code nameG96CNV17 A3
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)6 February 2002 (22 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 cores32no data
Core clock speed500 MHz275 MHz
Number of transistors314 million29 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm150 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Wattno data
Texture fill rate8.0001.100
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPSno data
ROPs82
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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-IIAGP 4x
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR3DDR
Maximum RAM amount512 MB64 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz200 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s6.4 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)8.0
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.31.3
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
+2600%
GeForce4 MX 440 0.01

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
+2525%
GeForce4 MX 440 4

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 4−5 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+2700%
1−2
−2700%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7 0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 0.01
Recency 15 June 2009 6 February 2002
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 64 MB
Chip lithography 55 nm 150 nm

GT 320M has a 2600% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 172.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GT 320M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce4 MX 440 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 320M is a notebook card while GeForce4 MX 440 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 GT 320M
GeForce GT 320M
NVIDIA GeForce4 MX 440
GeForce4 MX 440

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.


3.3 122 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 257 votes

Rate GeForce4 MX 440 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.