Radeon HD 2600 PRO vs GeForce 320M

Place in performance ranking	1177	1174
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code name	MCP89	RV630
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 April 2010 (14 years ago)	28 June 2007 (16 years ago)
Current price	$408	$100

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce 320M and ATI HD 2600 PRO have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores	32	120
Core clock speed	450 MHz	600 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	390 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	4.800
Floating-point performance	no data	144 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce 320M and Radeon HD 2600 PRO compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Interface	PCIe 2.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	None

Memory type	System Shared	DDR2
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	16 GB/s
Shared memory	+	no data

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

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model	4.1	4.0
OpenGL	3.3	3.3
OpenCL	N/A	N/A
Vulkan	N/A	N/A

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.

Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance 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

ATI HD 2600 PRO 0.55
+1.9%

Radeon HD 2600 PRO outperforms GeForce 320M by 2% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GeForce 320M 209

ATI HD 2600 PRO 211
+1%

Radeon HD 2600 PRO outperforms GeForce 320M by 1% in Passmark.

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

17
+6.3%

16−18

−6.3%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

+0%

3−4
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Metro Exodus	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Hitman 3	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%

This is how GeForce 320M and ATI HD 2600 PRO compete in popular games:

GeForce 320M is 6.3% faster than ATI HD 2600 PRO in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.54	0.55
Recency	1 April 2010	28 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	512 MB
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	35 Watt