Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile vs Radeon R5 M320

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M320 with RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

R5 M320
2015
4 GB DDR3
1.18
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
2024
4 GB GDDR6, 35 Watt
27.26
+2210%

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms R5 M320 by a whopping 2210% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1061198
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data56.19
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameJetAD107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date5 May 2015 (9 years ago)26 February 2024 (less than a 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 cores3202048
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed780 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed855 MHz2025 MHz
Number of transistors690 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)unknown35 Watt
Texture fill rate17.10129.6
Floating-point processing power0.5472 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs832
TMUs2064
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
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 4.0 x8

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 typeDDR3GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth16 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model5.16.8
OpenGL4.44.6
OpenCLNot Listed3.0
Vulkan+1.3
Mantle+-
CUDA-8.9

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.

R5 M320 1.18
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 27.26
+2210%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

R5 M320 1652
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 20239
+1125%

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

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2150%
90−95
+2150%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2043%
300−310
+2043%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2150%
45−50
+2150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−2186%
160−170
+2186%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2088%
700−750
+2088%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2150%
90−95
+2150%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry New Dawn 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2043%
300−310
+2043%
Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2150%
45−50
+2150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−2186%
160−170
+2186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−2173%
250−260
+2173%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2088%
700−750
+2088%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−2150%
90−95
+2150%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−2067%
65−70
+2067%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
−2043%
300−310
+2043%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 7−8
−2186%
160−170
+2186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
−2173%
250−260
+2173%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
−2088%
700−750
+2088%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2150%
45−50
+2150%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3
−2150%
45−50
+2150%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Hitman 3 7−8
−2186%
160−170
+2186%
Horizon Zero Dawn 4−5
−2150%
90−95
+2150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 5−6
−2100%
110−120
+2100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
−2150%
90−95
+2150%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−2000%
21−24
+2000%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−2150%
45−50
+2150%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.18 27.26
Recency 5 May 2015 26 February 2024
Chip lithography 28 nm 5 nm

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile has a 2210.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 460% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M320 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R5 M320 is a notebook graphics card while RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation one.


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.


AMD Radeon R5 M320
Radeon R5 M320
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.4 44 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M320 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 13 votes

Rate RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 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.