Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce 320M

Place in the ranking	1215	526
Place by popularity	not in top-100	39
Power efficiency	1.63	11.48
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code name	C89	Cezanne
Market segment	Desktop	Desktop
Release date	1 April 2010 (14 years ago)	13 April 2021 (3 years 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	448
Core clock speed	450 MHz	300 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1900 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	53.20
Floating-point processing power	0.0912 TFLOPS	1.702 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	8
TMUs	16	28

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	IGP
Width	IGP	IGP
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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	4.1	6.4
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	N/A	2.1
Vulkan	N/A	1.2

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	21 −9.5%	23 +9.5%
1440p	2−3 −1700%	36 +1700%
4K	1−2 −1900%	20 +1900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

3−4

−1233%

40−45
+1233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1275%	55−60 +1275%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −1200%	65−70 +1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −1233%	400−450 +1233%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1275%	55−60 +1275%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Hitman 3	5−6 −1200%	65−70 +1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −1233%	400−450 +1233%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 −1275%	55−60 +1275%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Hitman 3	5−6 −1200%	65−70 +1200%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	10−11 −1200%	130−140 +1200%
Watch Dogs: Legion	30−33 −1233%	400−450 +1233%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn

1−2

−1100%

12−14
+1100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Far Cry 5	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Hitman 3	6−7 −1233%	80−85 +1233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −1233%	40−45 +1233%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

3−4

−1233%

40−45
+1233%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −1100%	12−14 +1100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

−1250%

27−30
+1250%

This is how GeForce 320M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:

Vega 7 is 10% faster in 1080p
Vega 7 is 1700% faster in 1440p
Vega 7 is 1900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.54	7.46
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 a 1281.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Vega 7 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.