GeForce 320M vs Radeon R5 (Carrizo)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 (Carrizo) and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R5 (Carrizo) outperforms 320M by a whopping 239% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 928 | 1233 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.59 | 1.61 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Carrizo | C89 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 June 2015 (9 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 cores | 256 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12-35 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.0912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
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 | medium sized | no data |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 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 type | no data | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | no data | System 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 Connectors | no data | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
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 | 80−85
+233%
| 24
−233%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+32.1%
|
27−30
−32.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+112%
|
16−18
−112%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+32.1%
|
27−30
−32.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Dota 2 | 20−22
+81.8%
|
10−12
−81.8%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Valorant | 35−40
+32.1%
|
27−30
−32.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 10−12
+1000%
|
1−2
−1000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+300%
|
3−4
−300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 9−10
+200%
|
3−4
−200%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R5 (Carrizo) and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:
- R5 (Carrizo) is 233% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 (Carrizo) is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 (Carrizo) is ahead in 34 tests (97%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.83 | 0.54 |
| Recency | 4 June 2015 | 1 April 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 23 Watt |
R5 (Carrizo) has a 238.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 42.9% more advanced lithography process, and 91.7% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R5 (Carrizo) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
