GeForce GT 325M vs Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) with GeForce GT 325M, including specs and performance data.
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) outperforms 325M by a whopping 598% 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 | 842 | 1345 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.38 |
| Architecture | GCN (2012−2015) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Kaveri Spectre | GT216 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 14 January 2014 (12 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (16 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 | 512 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 720 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.09504 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 142 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 64 KB |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.4 GB/s |
| 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 data | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 18
+800%
| 2−3
−800%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 3−4 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+73.1%
|
24−27
−73.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 50−55
+260%
|
14−16
−260%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+190%
|
10−11
−190%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+73.1%
|
24−27
−73.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 26
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14
+85.7%
|
7−8
−85.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+73.1%
|
24−27
−73.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Palworld | 8−9
+167%
|
3−4
−167%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 4−5 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) and GT 325M compete in popular games:
- R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 800% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is 2000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) performs better in 29 tests (94%)
- there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.86 | 0.41 |
| Recency | 14 January 2014 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 40 nm |
R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) has a 598% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 325M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R7 512 Cores (Kaveri Desktop) is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 325M is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
