NVS 810 vs GeForce GT 325M

Place in the ranking	1258	776
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.30	3.12
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Maxwell (2014−2017)
GPU code name	GT216	GM107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	10 January 2010 (15 years ago)	4 November 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 cores	48	512 ×2
Core clock speed	450 MHz	902 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1033 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	1,870 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	68 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	33.06 ×2
Floating-point processing power	0.09504 TFLOPS	1.058 TFLOPS ×2
Gigaflops	142	no data
ROPs	8	16 ×2
TMUs	16	32 ×2

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
Bus support	PCI-E 2.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 3.0 x16
Length	no data	198 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None
SLI options	+	-

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	DDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB ×2
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit ×2
Memory clock speed	Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz	900 MHz
Memory bandwidth	22.4 GB/s	14.4 GB/s ×2
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	Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI	8x mini-DisplayPort
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
Maximum VGA resolution	2048x1536	no data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Power management

8.0

no data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.1	5.1
OpenGL	2.1	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	+	5.0

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.

GT 325M 0.44

NVS 810 3.10
+605%

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 325M 169

NVS 810 1190
+604%

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

Atomic Heart	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −543%	45−50 +543%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −543%	45−50 +543%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −543%	45−50 +543%
Valorant	27−30 −604%	190−200 +604%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −543%	45−50 +543%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	14−16 −567%	100−105 +567%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Dota 2	10−11 −600%	70−75 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −543%	45−50 +543%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −575%	27−30 +575%
Valorant	27−30 −604%	190−200 +604%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −543%	45−50 +543%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
Dota 2	10−11 −600%	70−75 +600%
Forza Horizon 4	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −543%	45−50 +543%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −575%	27−30 +575%
Valorant	27−30 −604%	190−200 +604%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite

0−1

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −567%	100−105 +567%
Valorant	3−4 −600%	21−24 +600%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	1−2 −600%	7−8 +600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	2−3 −600%	14−16 +600%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite

2−3
−600%

14−16

+600%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.44	3.10
Recency	10 January 2010	4 November 2015
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	68 Watt

GT 325M has 195.7% lower power consumption.

NVS 810, on the other hand, has a 604.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The NVS 810 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 325M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 325M is a notebook card while NVS 810 is a workstation one.