GeForce GT 320M vs GTX 260
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 751 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.14 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GT2xx (2009−2012) |
| GPU code name | GT200 | G96C |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 June 2008 (16 years ago) | 21 January 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $449 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 192 | 24 |
| CUDA cores | 192 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 576 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 105 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 36.86 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.4769 gflops | 0.08 gflops |
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 | no data | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | MXM-II |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 448 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 999 MHz | 790 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 111.9 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| 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 Connectors | Dual Link DVIHDTV | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | S/PDIF | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | 1.1 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 16 June 2008 | 21 January 2010 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 896 MB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 182 Watt | 14 Watt |
GT 320M has an age advantage of 1 year, a 14.3% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1200% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 260 and GeForce GT 320M. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 320M is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
