GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon RX 6700 XT

Place in the ranking	50	1349
Place by popularity	95	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	56.15	no data
Power efficiency	15.45	1.33
Architecture	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Navi 22	G96C
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	3 March 2021 (3 years ago)	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$479	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 cores	2560	32
Core clock speed	2321 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	2581 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	17,200 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	230 Watt	14 Watt
Texture fill rate	413.0	8.000
Floating-point processing power	13.21 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	160	16
Ray Tracing Cores	40	no data

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	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x16	MXM-II
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	None

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	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	384.0 GB/s	25.6 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 Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.2	N/A
CUDA	-	1.1

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.

RX 6700 XT 51.62
+19019%

GT 320M 0.27

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.

RX 6700 XT 19847
+18802%

GT 320M 105

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.

RX 6700 XT 109039
+8949%

GT 320M 1205

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	154	0−1
1440p	83	-0−1
4K	50	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.11	no data
1440p	5.77	no data
4K	9.58	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	159 +1888%	8−9 −1888%
Cyberpunk 2077	119 +5850%	2−3 −5850%
Elden Ring	180	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	123 +1438%	8−9 −1438%
Cyberpunk 2077	104 +5100%	2−3 −5100%
Forza Horizon 4	342 +6740%	5−6 −6740%
Metro Exodus	150	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	95−100 +2300%	4−5 −2300%
Valorant	210−220 +21700%	1−2 −21700%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	104 +1200%	8−9 −1200%
Cyberpunk 2077	91 +4450%	2−3 −4450%
Dota 2	166	0−1
Elden Ring	215 +21400%	1−2 −21400%
Far Cry 5	61 +917%	6−7 −917%
Fortnite	200−210 +20700%	1−2 −20700%
Forza Horizon 4	281 +5520%	5−6 −5520%
Grand Theft Auto V	161	0−1
Metro Exodus	117	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	210−220 +3483%	6−7 −3483%
Red Dead Redemption 2	95−100 +2300%	4−5 −2300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	170−180 +4250%	4−5 −4250%
Valorant	210−220 +21700%	1−2 −21700%
World of Tanks	270−280 +2225%	12−14 −2225%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	91 +1038%	8−9 −1038%
Cyberpunk 2077	82 +4000%	2−3 −4000%
Dota 2	139	0−1
Far Cry 5	110−120 +1733%	6−7 −1733%
Forza Horizon 4	240 +4700%	5−6 −4700%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	210−220 +3483%	6−7 −3483%
Valorant	210−220 +21700%	1−2 −21700%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	102	0−1
Elden Ring	116	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	102	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +17400%	1−2 −17400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	55−60	0−1
World of Tanks	300−350 +32900%	1−2 −32900%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	80−85	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	54 +500%	9−10 −500%
Cyberpunk 2077	54 +2600%	2−3 −2600%
Far Cry 5	150−160 +3875%	4−5 −3875%
Forza Horizon 4	173	0−1
Metro Exodus	123	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +4950%	2−3 −4950%
Valorant	180−190 +4525%	4−5 −4525%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	32	0−1
Dota 2	102 +580%	14−16 −580%
Elden Ring	55	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	102 +580%	14−16 −580%
Metro Exodus	43	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +17600%	1−2 −17600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35−40	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	102 +580%	14−16 −580%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	60−65	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	55−60	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	24 +2300%	1−2 −2300%
Dota 2	106 +607%	14−16 −607%
Far Cry 5	85−90	0−1
Fortnite	80−85	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	93	0−1
Valorant	100−110	0−1

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the RX 6700 XT is 17600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX 6700 XT surpassed GT 320M in all 31 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	51.62	0.27
Recency	3 March 2021	15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	7 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	230 Watt	14 Watt

RX 6700 XT has a 19018.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 1542.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 6700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6700 XT 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.