NVS 510 vs GeForce GT 320M

Place in the ranking	1347	923
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.10
Power efficiency	1.32	3.50
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	G96C	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	32	192
Core clock speed	500 MHz	797 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.000	12.75
Floating-point processing power	0.08 TFLOPS	0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	16	16

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 size	medium sized	no data
Interface	MXM-II	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	160 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	2 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	28.51 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 Connectors

No outputs

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.1
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	1.1	3.0

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

NVS 510 1.79
+563%

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

NVS 510 691
+558%

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
−500%

12−14

+500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Hitman 3	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −525%	50−55 +525%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −543%	180−190 +543%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Hitman 3	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −525%	50−55 +525%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −511%	55−60 +511%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −543%	180−190 +543%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −500%	18−20 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%
Hitman 3	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −525%	50−55 +525%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −500%	24−27 +500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −511%	55−60 +511%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −543%	180−190 +543%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 −483%	35−40 +483%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 −500%	12−14 +500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
−500%

12−14

+500%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
−500%

12−14

+500%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.27	1.79
Recency	15 June 2009	23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	2 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	35 Watt

GT 320M has 150% lower power consumption.

NVS 510, on the other hand, has a 563% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

The NVS 510 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 320M is a notebook card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.