Radeon 760M vs GeForce GT 320M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 320M with Radeon 760M, including specs and performance data.
760M outperforms 320M by a whopping 4615% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1430 | 444 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 75 |
| Power efficiency | 1.49 | 65.70 |
| Architecture | Tesla (2006−2010) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2026) |
| GPU code name | G96C | Phoenix |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 15 June 2009 (17 years ago) | 31 January 2024 (2 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 32 | 512 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2599 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 314 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 8.000 | 83.17 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.08 TFLOPS | 5.323 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 16 |
| TMUs | 16 | 32 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 8 |
| L0 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L1 Cache | no data | 128 KB |
| L2 Cache | 32 KB | 2 MB |
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 | MXM-II | PCIe 4.0 x8 |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 800 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | Motherboard Dependent |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_0) | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | 4.0 | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
| CUDA | 1.1 | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
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.
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 | 0−1 | 29 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 18 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−3800%
|
39
+3800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 30 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−2800%
|
29
+2800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 24 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−307%
|
110−120
+307%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 1−2
−1600%
|
17
+1600%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 12−14
−1285%
|
180−190
+1285%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 18 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−844%
|
85−90
+844%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−660%
|
38
+660%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−307%
|
110−120
+307%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 27−30 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10
−844%
|
85−90
+844%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1733%
|
55−60
+1733%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−571%
|
45−50
+571%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−360%
|
23
+360%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−307%
|
110−120
+307%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−700%
|
16
+700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 95−100 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−2833%
|
85−90
+2833%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 0−1 | 30−35 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1700%
|
18−20
+1700%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−71.4%
|
24−27
+71.4%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−1120%
|
60−65
+1120%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−1100%
|
12−14
+1100%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 77
+0%
|
77
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 38
+0%
|
38
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35
+0%
|
35
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 27−30
+0%
|
27−30
+0%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 18−20
+0%
|
18−20
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 45−50
+0%
|
45−50
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the Radeon 760M is 3800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 760M performs better in 24 tests (42%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (58%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.27 | 12.73 |
| Recency | 15 June 2009 | 31 January 2024 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 14 Watt | 15 Watt |
GT 320M has 7% lower power consumption.
Radeon 760M, on the other hand, has a 4615% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 1275% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon 760M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 320M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon 760M is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
