GeForce 320M vs RTX 3050 4GB Mobile

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
2021
4 GB GDDR6, 60 Watt
24.55
+4446%

RTX 3050 4GB Mobile outperforms 320M by a whopping 4446% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2291224
Place by popularity52not in top-100
Power efficiency28.171.62
ArchitectureAmpere (2020−2024)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGN20-P0C89
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date11 May 2021 (3 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 cores204848
Core clock speed1238 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1500 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data486 million
Manufacturing process technology8 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)60 Watt (35 - 80 Watt TGP)23 Watt
Texture fill rateno data7.200
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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
Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed12000 MHzSystem Shared
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 dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_211.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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.

RTX 3050 4GB Mobile 24.55
+4446%
GeForce 320M 0.54

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.

RTX 3050 4GB Mobile 43216
+2233%
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:

Full HD64
+220%
20
−220%
1440p450−1
4K290−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 42
+425%
8−9
−425%
Cyberpunk 2077 66
+3200%
2−3
−3200%
Elden Ring 51
+5000%
1−2
−5000%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+7400%
1−2
−7400%
Counter-Strike 2 38
+375%
8−9
−375%
Cyberpunk 2077 46
+2200%
2−3
−2200%
Forza Horizon 4 115
+1817%
6−7
−1817%
Metro Exodus 83
+8200%
1−2
−8200%
Red Dead Redemption 2 87
+1640%
5−6
−1640%
Valorant 133
+6550%
2−3
−6550%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+7400%
1−2
−7400%
Counter-Strike 2 30
+275%
8−9
−275%
Cyberpunk 2077 37
+1750%
2−3
−1750%
Dota 2 96
+4700%
2−3
−4700%
Elden Ring 86
+8500%
1−2
−8500%
Far Cry 5 73
+943%
7−8
−943%
Fortnite 120−130 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 94
+1467%
6−7
−1467%
Grand Theft Auto V 86
+8500%
1−2
−8500%
Metro Exodus 57
+5600%
1−2
−5600%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+1838%
8−9
−1838%
Red Dead Redemption 2 50−55
+980%
5−6
−980%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 75−80
+1480%
5−6
−1480%
Valorant 68
+6700%
1−2
−6700%
World of Tanks 250−260
+1500%
16−18
−1500%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 75−80
+7400%
1−2
−7400%
Counter-Strike 2 45−50
+463%
8−9
−463%
Cyberpunk 2077 31
+1450%
2−3
−1450%
Dota 2 112
+5500%
2−3
−5500%
Far Cry 5 75−80
+986%
7−8
−986%
Forza Horizon 4 81
+1250%
6−7
−1250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 150−160
+1838%
8−9
−1838%
Valorant 95−100
+4850%
2−3
−4850%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 48
+4700%
1−2
−4700%
Elden Ring 40−45 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 48
+4700%
1−2
−4700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180
+5733%
3−4
−5733%
Red Dead Redemption 2 21−24 0−1
World of Tanks 160−170
+16200%
1−2
−16200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50
+4800%
1−2
−4800%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+133%
9−10
−133%
Cyberpunk 2077 17
+750%
2−3
−750%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+1675%
4−5
−1675%
Forza Horizon 4 56
+5500%
1−2
−5500%
Metro Exodus 52
+5100%
1−2
−5100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 35−40
+1700%
2−3
−1700%
Valorant 65−70
+1220%
5−6
−1220%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Dota 2 44
+193%
14−16
−193%
Elden Ring 18−20 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 44
+193%
14−16
−193%
Metro Exodus 17 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 75−80
+7400%
1−2
−7400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44
+193%
14−16
−193%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 24−27 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 21−24 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5
+400%
1−2
−400%
Dota 2 62
+313%
14−16
−313%
Far Cry 5 30−35 0−1
Fortnite 30−33 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 34 0−1
Valorant 30−35
+3100%
1−2
−3100%

This is how RTX 3050 4GB Mobile and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 220% faster in 1080p

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

  • in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is 16200% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, RTX 3050 4GB Mobile surpassed GeForce 320M in all 33 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 24.55 0.54
Recency 11 May 2021 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 8 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 60 Watt 23 Watt

RTX 3050 4GB Mobile has a 4446.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 320M, on the other hand, has 160.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.


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 RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M

Other comparisons

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.


4 1403 votes

Rate GeForce RTX 3050 4GB Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 53 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.