Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile vs ATI Radeon IGP 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon IGP 320M with RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

ATI IGP 320M
2002
0.01
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
2024
4 GB GDDR6, 35 Watt
23.52
+235100%

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms ATI IGP 320M by a whopping 235100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1535214
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data53.50
ArchitectureRage 7 (2001−2006)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameRS100AD107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 October 2002 (22 years ago)26 February 2024 (1 year 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 cores22048
Core clock speed160 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed160 MHz2025 MHz
Number of transistors30 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology180 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data35 Watt
Texture fill rate0.16129.6
Floating-point processing powerno data8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs132
TMUs164
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno 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 sizeno datamedium sized
InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data128.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR-+

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 outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX7.012 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Modelno data6.8
OpenGL1.44.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

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
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Atomic Heart 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Atomic Heart 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−234900%
4700−4750
+234900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−234900%
14100−14150
+234900%
Valorant 24−27
−234900%
56400−56450
+234900%
Atomic Heart 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
−234900%
18800−18850
+234900%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Dota 2 8−9
−234900%
18800−18850
+234900%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−234900%
4700−4750
+234900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−234900%
14100−14150
+234900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−234900%
7050−7100
+234900%
Valorant 24−27
−234900%
56400−56450
+234900%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Dota 2 8−9
−234900%
18800−18850
+234900%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−234900%
4700−4750
+234900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−234900%
14100−14150
+234900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−234900%
7050−7100
+234900%
Valorant 24−27
−234900%
56400−56450
+234900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−234900%
35250−35300
+234900%
Valorant 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−234900%
2350−2400
+234900%
Fortnite 2−3
−234900%
4700−4750
+234900%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.01 23.52
Recency 5 October 2002 26 February 2024
Chip lithography 180 nm 5 nm

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile has a 235100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 21 year, and a 3500% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon IGP 320M is a notebook graphics card while RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation one.

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.


ATI Radeon IGP 320M
Radeon IGP 320M
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 500 Ada Generation

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.


3
17 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6
20 votes

Rate RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon IGP 320M or RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.