RTX A2000 vs GeForce 320M

Place in the ranking	1286	186
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	32.66
Power efficiency	1.65	35.17
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Ampere (2020−2025)
GPU code name	C89	GA106
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	1 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 cores	48	3328
Core clock speed	450 MHz	562 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1200 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	12,000 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	70 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	124.8
Floating-point processing power	0.0912 TFLOPS	7.987 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	48
TMUs	16	104
Tensor Cores	no data	104
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	26
L1 Cache	no data	3.3 MB
L2 Cache	no data	3 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).

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	167 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	6 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	192 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	288.0 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 Connectors

No outputs

4x mini-DisplayPort 1.4a

API and SDK support

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.8
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	3.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.3
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 30.48
+6385%

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 13475
+6347%

Samples: 895

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 HD	24 −279%	91 +279%
1440p	0−1	43
4K	-0−1	28

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	4.93
1440p	no data	10.44
4K	no data	16.04

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%
Far Cry 5	0−1	108
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%
Far Cry 5	0−1	98
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%
Far Cry 5	0−1	91
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 −11300%	220−230 +11300%
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%
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%
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%

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 11300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX A2000 performs better in 29 tests (51%)
there's a draw in 28 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.47	30.48
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 6385.1% 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.