RTX A2000 vs GeForce 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 320M with RTX A2000, including specs and performance data.

GeForce 320M
2010
23 Watt
0.47

A2000 outperforms 320M by a whopping 6383% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1283184
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data33.08
Power efficiency1.6535.08
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code nameC89GA106
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date1 April 2010 (15 years ago)10 August 2021 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

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 cores483328
Core clock speed450 MHz562 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1200 MHz
Number of transistors486 million12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt70 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200124.8
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs848
TMUs16104
Tensor Coresno data104
Ray Tracing Coresno data26
L1 Cacheno data3.3 MB
L2 Cacheno data3 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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Lengthno data167 mm
Widthno data2-slot
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 SharedGDDR6
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared6 GB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared192 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared1500 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data288.0 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 outputs4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

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-8.6
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 0.47
RTX A2000 30.47
+6383%

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
Samples: 124
RTX A2000 13473
+6346%
Samples: 878

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 A2000 76281
+4019%

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
−279%
91
+279%
1440p0−143
4K-0−128

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data4.93
1440pno data10.44
4Kno data16.04

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−1360%
70−75
+1360%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−3075%
120−130
+3075%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−1360%
70−75
+1360%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1538%
130−140
+1538%
Valorant 27−30
−644%
200−210
+644%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18
−1529%
270−280
+1529%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%
Dota 2 10−12
−6264%
700−750
+6264%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−3075%
120−130
+3075%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−1360%
70−75
+1360%
Metro Exodus 0−1 60
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1538%
130−140
+1538%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−2240%
117
+2240%
Valorant 27−30
−644%
200−210
+644%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−7300%
70−75
+7300%
Dota 2 10−12
−6264%
700−750
+6264%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
−3075%
120−130
+3075%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−1360%
70−75
+1360%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
−1538%
130−140
+1538%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1180%
64
+1180%
Valorant 27−30
−644%
200−210
+644%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−2467%
75−80
+2467%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
−11250%
220−230
+11250%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6
−3400%
170−180
+3400%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−4350%
85−90
+4350%
Hogwarts Legacy 0−1 35−40
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−4600%
47
+4600%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 80−85

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−273%
56
+273%
Valorant 3−4
−6500%
190−200
+6500%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−1900%
40−45
+1900%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Far Cry 5 108
+0%
108
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 121
+0%
121
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 180−190
+0%
180−190
+0%
Far Cry 5 98
+0%
98
+0%
Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 106
+0%
106
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 129
+0%
129
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Far Cry 5 91
+0%
91
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 140−150
+0%
140−150
+0%

1440p
High

Grand Theft Auto V 58
+0%
58
+0%
Metro Exodus 34
+0%
34
+0%
Valorant 230−240
+0%
230−240
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 85−90
+0%
85−90
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Far Cry 5 61
+0%
61
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Metro Exodus 20
+0%
20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40
+0%
40
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 30
+0%
30
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 55−60
+0%
55−60
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

This is how GeForce 320M and RTX A2000 compete in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 is 279% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX A2000 is 11250% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • RTX A2000 performs better in 29 tests (48%)
  • there's a draw in 31 tests (52%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.47 30.47
Recency 1 April 2010 10 August 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 8 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 70 Watt

GeForce 320M has 204.3% lower power consumption.

RTX A2000, on the other hand, has a 6383% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 400% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX A2000 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 A2000 is a 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 A2000
RTX A2000

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 64 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 615 votes

Rate RTX A2000 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 A2000, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.