Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking1226not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-10037
ArchitectureGT2xx (2009−2012)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameMCP89Cezanne
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 years ago)

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 cores32448
Core clock speed450 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1900 MHz
Number of transistors486 million9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rate7.20053.20
Floating-point performance0.0912 gflops1.702 gflops

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 x16IGP
Widthno dataIGP
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 typeno dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.4
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A2.1
VulkanN/A1.2

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 2010 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 40 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 45 Watt

GeForce 320M has 95.7% lower power consumption.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 320M and Radeon Vega 7. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 320M is a notebook card while Radeon Vega 7 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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
AMD Radeon Vega 7
Radeon Vega 7

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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 51 vote

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 1754 votes

Rate Radeon Vega 7 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.