UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) vs GeForce 320M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 320M and UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H), covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Graphics 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) outperforms 320M by a whopping 326% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1282 | 907 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.65 | no data |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | Gen. 12 (2021−2023) |
| GPU code name | C89 | Tiger Lake Xe |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 April 2010 (15 years ago) | 30 March 2021 (4 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 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 350 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.0912 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | no data |
| TMUs | 16 | no data |
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 | no data |
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 | no data |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | no data |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | no data |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | no data |
| 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 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Quick Sync | no data | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12_1 |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | no data |
| OpenCL | N/A | no data |
| Vulkan | N/A | - |
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.
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.
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 | 24
+118%
| 11
−118%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 16−18
−153%
|
40−45
+153%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−109%
|
23
+109%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 4−5 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−80%
|
9
+80%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−400%
|
5−6
+400%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−12
−100%
|
22
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−175%
|
10−12
+175%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−50%
|
12−14
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−48.1%
|
40−45
+48.1%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
−66.7%
|
5−6
+66.7%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−1400%
|
14−16
+1400%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
−300%
|
20−22
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−150%
|
5−6
+150%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−200%
|
3−4
+200%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 4−5 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−267%
|
10−12
+267%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10
+0%
|
10
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8
+0%
|
8
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 5
+0%
|
5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how GeForce 320M and UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) compete in popular games:
- GeForce 320M is 118% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) is 1400% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) performs better in 29 tests (56%)
- there's a draw in 23 tests (44%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.47 | 2.00 |
| Recency | 1 April 2010 | 30 March 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 10 nm |
UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) has a 325.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 300% more advanced lithography process.
The UHD Graphics Xe 16EUs (Tiger Lake-H) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 320M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
