GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon R9 290

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking259not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation7.90no data
Power efficiency5.28no data
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameHawaiiG96C
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date5 November 2013 (11 years ago)15 June 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 no data

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 cores256032
Core clock speed947 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors6,200 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)275 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate151.58.000
Floating-point processing power4.849 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs16016

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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-II
Length275 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width512 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1250 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth320.0 GB/s25.6 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA-1.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



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.

R9 290 8093
+7608%
GT 320M 105

Pros & cons summary


Recency 5 November 2013 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 275 Watt 14 Watt

R9 290 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 1864.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R9 290 and GeForce GT 320M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R9 290 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 320M is a notebook 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 R9 290
Radeon R9 290
NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M
GeForce GT 320M

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.


4.1 551 vote

Rate Radeon R9 290 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 121 vote

Rate GeForce GT 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.