GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q vs 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 320M and GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 320M
2010
23 Watt
0.54

GTX 1050 Max-Q outperforms 320M by a whopping 1848% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1222436
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.619.62
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameC89GP107
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)3 January 2018 (6 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 cores48640
Core clock speed450 MHz1190 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1328 MHz
Number of transistors486 million3,300 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt75 Watt
Texture fill rate7.20053.12
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS1.7 TFLOPS
ROPs816
TMUs1640

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 sizeno datalarge
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeSystem SharedGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared4 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1752 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data112.1 GB/s
Shared memory+-

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A1.2
VulkanN/A1.2.131
CUDA-6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce 320M 0.54
GTX 1050 Max-Q 10.52
+1848%

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.

GeForce 320M 209
GTX 1050 Max-Q 4052
+1839%

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.

GeForce 320M 1852
GTX 1050 Max-Q 26081
+1308%

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 HD16
−181%
45
+181%
1440p1−2
−2600%
27
+2600%
4K0−114

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−825%
37
+825%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−933%
31
+933%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−300%
20−22
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−470%
55−60
+470%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−950%
63
+950%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−525%
24−27
+525%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−867%
29
+867%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−2800%
27−30
+2800%
Hitman 3 5−6
−300%
20−22
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−470%
55−60
+470%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−467%
30−35
+467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−180%
27−30
+180%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−300%
16
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−533%
19
+533%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−433%
16−18
+433%
Hitman 3 5−6
−300%
20−22
+300%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−470%
55−60
+470%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−467%
30−35
+467%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−110%
21
+110%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−117%
65−70
+117%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1500%
16−18
+1500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 10
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−1100%
12−14
+1100%
Hitman 3 6−7
−133%
14−16
+133%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−633%
21−24
+633%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−6600%
65−70
+6600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−567%
20
+567%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−500%
6
+500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 5−6

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−400%
10
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 37
+0%
37
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Metro Exodus 44
+0%
44
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 44
+0%
44
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Battlefield 5 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 97
+0%
97
+0%
Metro Exodus 35
+0%
35
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 30
+0%
30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 22
+0%
22
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 31
+0%
31
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 11
+0%
11
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 24
+0%
24
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Hitman 3 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50
+0%
45−50
+0%
Metro Exodus 13
+0%
13
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 13
+0%
13
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6
+0%
6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Far Cry 5 6
+0%
6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%

This is how GeForce 320M and GTX 1050 Max-Q compete in popular games:

  • GTX 1050 Max-Q is 181% faster in 1080p
  • GTX 1050 Max-Q is 2600% faster in 1440p

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 1050 Max-Q is 6600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 1050 Max-Q is ahead in 35 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 35 tests (50%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 10.52
Recency 1 April 2010 3 January 2018
Chip lithography 40 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 75 Watt

GeForce 320M has 226.1% lower power consumption.

GTX 1050 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 1848.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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.


NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q
GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 52 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 251 vote

Rate GeForce GTX 1050 Max-Q on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.