Radeon RX 7800 XT vs ATI HD 3200

Place in the ranking	1385	30
Place by popularity	not in top-100	60
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	67.92
Power efficiency	no data	16.53
Architecture	TeraScale (2005−2013)	RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024)
GPU code name	RS780	Navi 32
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	4 March 2008 (16 years ago)	25 August 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	40	3840
Core clock speed	494 MHz	1295 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	2430 MHz
Number of transistors	180 million	28,100 million
Manufacturing process technology	65 nm	5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	no data	263 Watt
Texture fill rate	1.976	583.2
Floating-point processing power	0.03952 TFLOPS	37.32 TFLOPS
ROPs	4	96
TMUs	4	240
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	60

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).

Interface	PCIe 1.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Width	IGP	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 8-pin

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	System Shared	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	16 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	2438 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	624.1 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	No outputs	1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	10.0 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.7
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.0	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3

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.

ATI HD 3200 0.21

RX 7800 XT 63.02
+29910%

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.

ATI HD 3200 82

RX 7800 XT 24221
+29438%

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.

ATI HD 3200 82

RX 7800 XT 134322
+164712%

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 HD	3 −7067%	215 +7067%
1440p	-0−1	122
4K	-0−1	72

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	2.32
1440p	no data	4.09
4K	no data	6.93

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −3917%	241 +3917%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −12800%	258 +12800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −3233%	200 +3233%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −4700%	96 +4700%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −9660%	488 +9660%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2775%	110−120 +2775%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −2617%	163 +2617%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3900%	80 +3900%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −1783%	113 +1783%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −7860%	398 +7860%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 −3483%	210−220 +3483%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −2775%	110−120 +2775%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −4250%	170−180 +4250%
World of Tanks	10−12 −2436%	270−280 +2436%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	6−7 −2383%	149 +2383%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −3600%	74 +3600%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −1933%	120−130 +1933%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −6700%	340 +6700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 −3483%	210−220 +3483%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

1−2

−17400%

170−180
+17400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 −213%	97 +213%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1500%	48 +1500%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −3900%	160−170 +3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −3575%	147 +3575%
Valorant	4−5 −6275%	250−260 +6275%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2	14−16 −913%	152 +913%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −913%	152 +913%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	0−1	200−210
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −913%	152 +913%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	80−85
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −1000%	22 +1000%
Dota 2	14−16 −29900%	4500−4550 +29900%
Valorant	0−1	140−150