RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile vs GeForce 320M

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 320M with RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 320M
2010
23 Watt
0.45

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms 320M by a whopping 7813% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1314157
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.5054.76
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameC89AD107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date1 April 2010 (15 years ago)21 March 2023 (2 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 cores483072
Core clock speed450 MHz1635 MHz
Boost clock speedno data2115 MHz
Number of transistors486 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200203.0
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS12.99 TFLOPS
ROPs848
TMUs1696
Tensor Coresno data96
Ray Tracing Coresno data24
L1 Cacheno data3 MB
L2 Cacheno data12 MB

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 4.0 x16

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 SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared8 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared128 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared2000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data256.0 GB/s
Shared memory+-
Resizable BAR-+

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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model4.16.8
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3
CUDA-8.9
DLSS-+

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.

GeForce 320M 0.45
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 35.61
+7813%

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 190
Samples: 126
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 14890
+7737%
Samples: 1711

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
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile 37844
+1943%

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 HD24
−7608%
1850−1900
+7608%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7400%
75−80
+7400%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7400%
75−80
+7400%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−7400%
300−310
+7400%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−7757%
550−600
+7757%
Valorant 27−30
−7678%
2100−2150
+7678%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−7713%
1250−1300
+7713%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7400%
75−80
+7400%
Dota 2 10−11
−7400%
750−800
+7400%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−7400%
300−310
+7400%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−7757%
550−600
+7757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%
Valorant 27−30
−7678%
2100−2150
+7678%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7400%
75−80
+7400%
Dota 2 10−11
−7400%
750−800
+7400%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−7400%
300−310
+7400%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−7757%
550−600
+7757%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%
Valorant 27−30
−7678%
2100−2150
+7678%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−7567%
230−240
+7567%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2
−7400%
75−80
+7400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−6900%
350−400
+6900%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−7400%
75−80
+7400%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−7400%
75−80
+7400%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−7757%
1100−1150
+7757%
Valorant 2−3
−7400%
150−160
+7400%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−7400%
150−160
+7400%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−7400%
150−160
+7400%

This is how GeForce 320M and RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:

  • RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is 7608% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.45 35.61
Recency 1 April 2010 21 March 2023
Chip lithography 40 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 50 Watt

GeForce 320M has 117.4% lower power consumption.

RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 7813.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and a 700% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 320M is a notebook graphics card while RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation 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.


NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M
NVIDIA RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile

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.


3.5 68 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 45 votes

Rate RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 320M or RTX 2000 Ada Generation Mobile, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.