GeForce 320M vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) outperforms 320M by a whopping 807% 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 | 737 | 1329 |
| Place by popularity | 44 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 21.51 | 1.55 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | C89 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 April 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 | 300 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 9,800 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 57.60 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.843 TFLOPS | 0.0912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 32 | 16 |
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 | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| 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 | 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_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 2.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | N/A |
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 | 18
−33.3%
| 24
+33.3%
|
| 4K | 10
+900%
| 1−2
−900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 7 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 24
+1100%
|
2−3
−1100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+1100%
|
1−2
−1100%
|
| Fortnite | 30
+900%
|
3−4
−900%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 26
+550%
|
4−5
−550%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 17
+113%
|
8−9
−113%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 42
+163%
|
16−18
−163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 38
+280%
|
10−11
−280%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Fortnite | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30
+650%
|
4−5
−650%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 13
+117%
|
6−7
−117%
|
| Valorant | 55−60
+112%
|
24−27
−112%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+1050%
|
2−3
−1050%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Dota 2 | 35
+250%
|
10−11
−250%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 23
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8
+33.3%
|
6−7
−33.3%
|
| Valorant | 15
−73.3%
|
24−27
+73.3%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Palworld | 10−11
+233%
|
3−4
−233%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−35
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30−35
+560%
|
5−6
−560%
|
| Valorant | 40−45
+925%
|
4−5
−925%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Palworld | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+260%
|
5−6
−260%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
This is how RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:
- GeForce 320M is 33% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 900% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is 1500% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 320M is 73% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) performs better in 31 tests (97%)
- GeForce 320M performs better in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 4.17 | 0.46 |
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 1 April 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 23 Watt |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has a 807% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 186% more advanced lithography process, and 53% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
