Radeon 780M vs GeForce 320M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 320M and Radeon 780M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
780M outperforms 320M by a whopping 3287% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1224 | 305 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 48 |
| Power efficiency | 1.62 | 84.13 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | RDNA 3.0 (2022−2024) |
| GPU code name | C89 | Hawx Point |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 April 2010 (14 years ago) | 6 December 2023 (1 year 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 cores | 48 | 768 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 2700 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 25,390 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 15 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 129.6 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0912 TFLOPS | 8.294 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 8 | 32 |
| TMUs | 16 | 48 |
| Ray Tracing Cores | no data | 12 |
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 x8 |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | System Shared |
| 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 Connectors | No outputs | Portable Device Dependent |
API compatibility
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 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.3 |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 20
−75%
| 35
+75%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 17 |
| 4K | -0−1 | 14 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−300%
|
32
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−225%
|
26
+225%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−650%
|
15
+650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−983%
|
65
+983%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−760%
|
40−45
+760%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−213%
|
25
+213%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−357%
|
32
+357%
|
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 95−100 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−800%
|
54
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1475%
|
120−130
+1475%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−760%
|
40−45
+760%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1040%
|
55−60
+1040%
|
| World of Tanks | 16−18
−1275%
|
220−230
+1275%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9
−300%
|
30−35
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−500%
|
12
+500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−800%
|
60−65
+800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−667%
|
46
+667%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−1475%
|
120−130
+1475%
|
1440p
High Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
−5433%
|
160−170
+5433%
|
| World of Tanks | 1−2
−12400%
|
120−130
+12400%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
−66.7%
|
14−16
+66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−600%
|
14−16
+600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
−1100%
|
45−50
+1100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−900%
|
20
+900%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−840%
|
45−50
+840%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−40%
|
21
+40%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−40%
|
21
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−5400%
|
55−60
+5400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
−40%
|
21
+40%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 18−20 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 14−16
−107%
|
30−35
+107%
|
| Valorant | 1−2
−2000%
|
21−24
+2000%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Elden Ring | 37
+0%
|
37
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 44
+0%
|
44
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 29
+0%
|
29
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 42
+0%
|
42
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 45
+0%
|
45
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 55−60
+0%
|
55−60
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 65−70
+0%
|
65−70
+0%
|
| Valorant | 70−75
+0%
|
70−75
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 30−33
+0%
|
30−33
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 40−45
+0%
|
40−45
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Elden Ring | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 21−24
+0%
|
21−24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 320M and Radeon 780M compete in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is 75% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in World of Tanks, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Radeon 780M is 12400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Radeon 780M is ahead in 33 tests (54%)
- there's a draw in 28 tests (46%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.54 | 18.29 |
| Recency | 1 April 2010 | 6 December 2023 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 4 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 15 Watt |
Radeon 780M has a 3287% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 13 years, a 900% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon 780M 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.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
