GeForce 320M vs FirePro D300

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared FirePro D300 with GeForce 320M, including specs and performance data.

FirePro D300
2014
2 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
9.27
+1960%

D300 outperforms 320M by a whopping 1960% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking5101311
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.741.50
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code namePitcairnC89
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
Release date18 January 2014 (11 years ago)1 April 2010 (15 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores128048
Core clock speed850 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate68.007.200
Floating-point processing power2.176 TFLOPS0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs8016
L1 Cache320 KBno data
L2 Cache512 KBno data

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length242 mmno data
Width1-slotno 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1270 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth162.6 GB/sno 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 Connectors4x DisplayPortNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX12 (11_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

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 HD450−500
+1775%
24
−1775%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how FirePro D300 and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • FirePro D300 is 1775% faster in 1080p

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 31 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.27 0.45
Recency 18 January 2014 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 23 Watt

FirePro D300 has a 1960% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GeForce 320M, on the other hand, has 552.2% lower power consumption.

The FirePro D300 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that FirePro D300 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce 320M is a notebook one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD FirePro D300
FirePro D300
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.9 35 votes

Rate FirePro D300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 68 votes

Rate GeForce 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about FirePro D300 or GeForce 320M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.