GeForce RTX 5080 vs ATI Radeon IGP 320M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon IGP 320M with GeForce RTX 5080, including specs and performance data.
RTX 5080 outperforms IGP 320M by a whopping 855000% 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 | 1603 | 4 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 76 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 49.08 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 18.38 |
| Architecture | Rage 7 (2001−2006) | Blackwell 2.0 (2025−2026) |
| GPU code name | RS100 | GB203 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 5 October 2002 (23 years ago) | 30 January 2025 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $999 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
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 | 2 | 10752 |
| Core clock speed | 160 MHz | 2295 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 160 MHz | 2617 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 30 million | 45,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 180 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 360 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 0.16 | 879.3 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 56.28 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 1 | 112 |
| TMUs | 1 | 336 |
| Tensor Cores | no data | 336 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 84 |
| L1 Cache | no data | 10.5 MB |
| L2 Cache | no data | 64 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).
| Interface | AGP 4x | PCIe 5.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 304 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 16-pin |
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 | System Shared | GDDR7 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 16 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 1875 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 960.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
| Resizable BAR | - | + |
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 | 1x HDMI 2.1b, 3x DisplayPort 2.1b |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 7.0 | 12 Ultimate (12_2) |
| Shader Model | no data | 6.8 |
| OpenGL | 1.4 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 3.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.4 |
| CUDA | - | 12.0 |
| DLSS | - | + |
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.
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 | 199 |
| 1440p | -0−1 | 148 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 101 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 5.02 |
| 1440p | no data | 6.75 |
| 4K | no data | 9.89 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Palworld | 2−3
−11350%
|
220−230
+11350%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−17100%
|
300−350
+17100%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
−11350%
|
220−230
+11350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−2487%
|
550−600
+2487%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−2989%
|
270−280
+2989%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−854900%
|
59850−59900
+854900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−17100%
|
300−350
+17100%
|
| Palworld | 2−3
−11350%
|
220−230
+11350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−7960%
|
400−450
+7960%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−2487%
|
550−600
+2487%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−854900%
|
59850−59900
+854900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−17100%
|
300−350
+17100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2371%
|
170−180
+2371%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−5480%
|
279
+5480%
|
| Valorant | 21−24
−2487%
|
550−600
+2487%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Palworld | 2−3
−11350%
|
220−230
+11350%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−28800%
|
280−290
+28800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 170−180 |
1440p
Ultra
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−23100%
|
232
+23100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−1147%
|
180−190
+1147%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−7875%
|
300−350
+7875%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−9500%
|
95−100
+9500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−7800%
|
75−80
+7800%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 270−280
+0%
|
270−280
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 170−180
+0%
|
170−180
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 65
+0%
|
65
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 230−240
+0%
|
230−240
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 500−550
+0%
|
500−550
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 173
+0%
|
173
+0%
|
| Valorant | 450−500
+0%
|
450−500
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 140−150
+0%
|
140−150
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 220−230
+0%
|
220−230
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 150−160
+0%
|
150−160
+0%
|
| Palworld | 190−200
+0%
|
190−200
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 120−130
+0%
|
120−130
+0%
|
| Palworld | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 232
+0%
|
232
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 160−170
+0%
|
160−170
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 300−350
+0%
|
300−350
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Palworld | 130−140
+0%
|
130−140
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 5080 is 28800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RTX 5080 performs better in 22 tests (36%)
- there's a draw in 39 tests (64%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.01 | 85.51 |
| Recency | 5 October 2002 | 30 January 2025 |
| Chip lithography | 180 nm | 5 nm |
RTX 5080 has a 855000% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 22 years, and a 3500% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce RTX 5080 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 320M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon IGP 320M is a notebook graphics card while GeForce RTX 5080 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.
