GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon RX Vega 11
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 11 with GeForce GT 320M, including specs and performance data.
RX Vega 11 outperforms 320M by a whopping 1741% 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 | 696 | 1436 |
| Place by popularity | 98 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 15.50 | 1.50 |
| Architecture | GCN 5.0 (2017−2019) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Raven | G96C |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 12 February 2018 (8 years ago) | 15 June 2009 (17 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 | 704 | 32 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1240 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 4,940 million | 314 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 14 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 54.56 | 8.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.971 TFLOPS | 0.08 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 44 | 16 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 32 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 |
| Interface | IGP | MXM-II |
| Width | IGP | no data |
| 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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 512 MB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 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 | Motherboard Dependent | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.7 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.3 | N/A |
| 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.
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 | 28
+2700%
| 1−2 |
| 1440p | 6 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 12 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 8−9 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 31
+3000%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2 |
| Fortnite | 86
+2050%
|
4−5 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 38
+1167%
|
3−4 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+2500%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+562%
|
12−14 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 46
+411%
|
9−10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 18 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 31
+3000%
|
1−2 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 35
+1067%
|
3−4 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6 |
| Metro Exodus | 9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14
+180%
|
5−6 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 25
+2400%
|
1−2 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 42
+367%
|
9−10 |
| Far Cry 5 | 17 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 29
+867%
|
3−4 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 10−11
+100%
|
5−6 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 18−20
+171%
|
7−8 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10
+100%
|
5−6 |
| Valorant | 60−65
+126%
|
27−30 |
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+1100%
|
3−4 |
| Valorant | 50−55
+2450%
|
2−3 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1100%
|
1−2 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+14.3%
|
14−16 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6 |
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 8 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 17 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12 | 0−1 |
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2 |
This is how RX Vega 11 and GT 320M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 11 is 2700% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the RX Vega 11 is 1167% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX Vega 11 surpassed GT 320M in all 26 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.97 | 0.27 |
| Recency | 12 February 2018 | 15 June 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 14 Watt |
RX Vega 11 has a 1741% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 75% more advanced lithography process.
GT 320M, on the other hand, has 44% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 11 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 11 is a desktop graphics card while GeForce GT 320M 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.
