Radeon R3 Graphics vs GeForce GT 320M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1344not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.34no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameG96CBeema
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)28 January 2015 (9 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 cores32128
Core clock speed500 MHz267 MHz
Boost clock speedno data600 MHz
Number of transistors314 million930 million
Manufacturing process technology55 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate8.0004.800
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPS0.1536 TFLOPS
ROPs84
TMUs168

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-IIIGP
Widthno dataIGP
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-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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_0)
Shader Model4.06.3
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA1.1-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 15 June 2009 28 January 2015
Chip lithography 55 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 15 Watt

GT 320M has 7.1% lower power consumption.

R3 Graphics, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 320M and Radeon R3 Graphics. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GT 320M is a notebook card while Radeon R3 Graphics 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
AMD Radeon R3 Graphics
Radeon R3 Graphics

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
2.9 696 votes

Rate Radeon R3 Graphics 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.