UHD Graphics 770 vs GeForce 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 320M and UHD Graphics 770, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 320M
2010
23 Watt
0.54

UHD Graphics 770 outperforms 320M by a whopping 1039% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1218577
Place by popularitynot in top-10028
Power efficiency1.6328.38
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 12.2 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameC89Raptor Lake GT1
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 years ago)27 September 2022 (2 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 cores48256
Core clock speed450 MHz300 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1650 MHz
Number of transistors486 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm10 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt15 Watt
Texture fill rate7.20026.40
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS0.8448 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs1616

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 x16Ring Bus
WidthIGPIGP

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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem 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 ConnectorsNo outputsMotherboard Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.16.6
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCLN/A3.0
VulkanN/A1.3

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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
UHD Graphics 770 6.15
+1039%

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 209
UHD Graphics 770 1016
+386%

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

GeForce 320M 1852
UHD Graphics 770 2655
+43.4%

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 HD20
+11.1%
18
−11.1%
4K1−2
−1200%
13
+1200%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−300%
12
+300%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10
+233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−270%
35−40
+270%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−250%
21−24
+250%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−66.7%
50−55
+66.7%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−1600%
16−18
+1600%
Hitman 3 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−270%
35−40
+270%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−200%
18
+200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
−100%
20−22
+100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−66.7%
50−55
+66.7%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−300%
16−18
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−233%
10−11
+233%
Hitman 3 5−6
−140%
12−14
+140%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−11
−20%
12
+20%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 6−7
−167%
16
+167%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−11
+11.1%
9
−11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−33
−66.7%
50−55
+66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2
−800%
9−10
+800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 0−1 6−7
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−200%
3−4
+200%
Far Cry 5 1−2
−600%
7−8
+600%
Hitman 3 6−7
−66.7%
10−11
+66.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 3−4
−333%
12−14
+333%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
−3800%
35−40
+3800%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−267%
10−12
+267%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 0−1 3−4

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
−200%
6−7
+200%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 13
+0%
13
+0%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Battlefield 5 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
Metro Exodus 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how GeForce 320M and UHD Graphics 770 compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 320M is 11% faster in 1080p
  • UHD Graphics 770 is 1200% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce 320M is 11% faster.
  • in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the UHD Graphics 770 is 3800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 320M is ahead in 1 test (1%)
  • UHD Graphics 770 is ahead in 34 tests (50%)
  • there's a draw in 33 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.54 6.15
Recency 1 April 2010 27 September 2022
Chip lithography 40 nm 10 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 15 Watt

UHD Graphics 770 has a 1038.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, a 300% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.

The UHD Graphics 770 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.

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
Intel UHD Graphics 770
UHD Graphics 770

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 52 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 1230 votes

Rate UHD Graphics 770 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.