Tesla M6 vs GeForce 320M

Place in the ranking	1317	391
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.51	11.46
Architecture	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)	Maxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)
GPU code name	C89	GM204
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	1 April 2010 (16 years ago)	30 August 2015 (10 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	1536
Core clock speed	450 MHz	930 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1180 MHz
Number of transistors	486 million	5,200 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	100 Watt
Texture fill rate	7.200	113.3
Floating-point processing power	0.0912 TFLOPS	3.625 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	64
TMUs	16	96
L1 Cache	no data	576 KB
L2 Cache	no data	2 MB

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 3.0 x16
Width	no data	MXM Module
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	GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount	System Shared	8 GB
Memory bus width	System Shared	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	System Shared	1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth	no data	160.4 GB/s
Shared memory	+	-

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors

No outputs

API and SDK support

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	1.2
Vulkan	N/A	1.1.126
CUDA	-	5.2

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

GeForce 320M 0.45

Tesla M6 14.88
+3207%

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.

GeForce 320M 190
Samples: 126

Tesla M6 6224
+3176%

Samples: 7

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

−3025%

750−800
+3025%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077

1−2

−2900%

30−33
+2900%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −3150%	130−140 +3150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −3186%	230−240 +3186%
Valorant	27−30 −3048%	850−900 +3048%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	16−18 −3025%	500−550 +3025%
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Dota 2	10−11 −2900%	300−310 +2900%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −3150%	130−140 +3150%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −3186%	230−240 +3186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −3100%	160−170 +3100%
Valorant	27−30 −3048%	850−900 +3048%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
Dota 2	10−11 −2900%	300−310 +2900%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −3150%	130−140 +3150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	7−8 −3186%	230−240 +3186%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −3100%	160−170 +3100%
Valorant	27−30 −3048%	850−900 +3048%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2	3−4 −3067%	95−100 +3067%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive	2−3 −3150%	65−70 +3150%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	5−6 −3100%	160−170 +3100%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −2900%	30−33 +2900%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite

0−1

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −3114%	450−500 +3114%
Valorant	2−3 −3150%	65−70 +3150%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

2−3

−3150%

65−70
+3150%

4K
Epic

Fortnite

2−3

−3150%

65−70
+3150%

This is how GeForce 320M and Tesla M6 compete in popular games:

Tesla M6 is 3025% faster in 1080p

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.45	14.88
Recency	1 April 2010	30 August 2015
Chip lithography	40 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	23 Watt	100 Watt

GeForce 320M has 335% lower power consumption.

Tesla M6, on the other hand, has a 3207% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, and a 43% more advanced lithography process.

The Tesla M6 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce 320M is a notebook graphics card while Tesla M6 is a workstation one.