Radeon RX 7600 XT vs GeForce 320M

Place in performance ranking	1183	67
Place by popularity	not in top-100	69
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	29.84
Architecture	GT2xx (2009−2012)	RDNA 3.0 (2022)
GPU code name	MCP89	Navi 33
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	1 April 2010 (14 years ago)	8 January 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$329
Current price	$408	$477 (1.4x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce 320M and RX 7600 XT 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	2048
Core clock speed	450 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	no data	2755 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	13,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	190 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	352.6

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce 320M and Radeon RX 7600 XT 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 4.0 x8
Length	no data	204 mm
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	no data	1x 8-pin

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	16 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	18 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	no data	288.0 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	1x HDMI 2.1a, 3x DisplayPort 2.1
HDMI	no data	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.1	6.7
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	2.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.3

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

RX 7600 XT 45.02
+8237%

Radeon RX 7600 XT outperforms GeForce 320M by 8237% based on our aggregate 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

RX 7600 XT 17388
+8220%

Radeon RX 7600 XT outperforms GeForce 320M by 8220% 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

−8233%

1000−1050
+8233%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

0−1

3−4

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	3−4
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	0−1	2−3
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	10−12
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	7−8
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	9−10

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	3−4
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Far Cry New Dawn	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	0−1	2−3
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	10−12
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	7−8
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	3−4
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	9−10

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	3−4
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	10−12
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	7−8
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	3−4
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	9−10

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	4−5
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	1−2
Far Cry 5	0−1	1−2
Hitman 3	0−1	6−7
Horizon Zero Dawn	0−1	3−4