GeForce 320M vs GT 540M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 540M with GeForce 320M, including specs and performance data.

GT 540M
2011
2 GB DDR3, 35 Watt
1.24
+130%

GT 540M outperforms 320M by a whopping 130% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking10351215
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.451.63
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGF108C89
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 January 2011 (13 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 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 cores9648
Core clock speed672 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors585 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate10.757.200
Floating-point processing power0.258 TFLOPS0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs48
TMUs1616

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 sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 2.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth28.8 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 outputs

Supported technologies

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

3D Blu-Ray+-
3D Gaming+-
Optimus+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 API11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.53.3
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

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 540M 1.24
+130%
GeForce 320M 0.54

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 540M 478
+129%
GeForce 320M 209

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GT 540M 4355
+135%
GeForce 320M 1852

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:

900p16
+167%
6−7
−167%
Full HD20
−5%
21
+5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+10%
10−11
−10%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+10%
30−33
−10%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how GT 540M and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • GT 540M is 167% faster in 900p
  • GeForce 320M is 5% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 540M is 500% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GT 540M is ahead in 28 tests (80%)
  • there's a draw in 7 tests (20%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.24 0.54
Recency 5 January 2011 1 April 2010
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 23 Watt

GT 540M has a 129.6% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 9 months.

GeForce 320M, on the other hand, has 52.2% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GT 540M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 540M is a notebook card while GeForce 320M 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 540M
GeForce GT 540M
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M

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.


3.4 903 votes

Rate GeForce GT 540M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 52 votes

Rate GeForce 320M 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.