GeForce GT 325M vs 920M

#ad 
Buy
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce 920M and GeForce GT 325M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GeForce 920M
2015
4 GB DDR3, 33 Watt
1.60
+321%

920M outperforms GT 325M by a whopping 321% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9311268
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.841.31
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameGK208BGT216
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date13 March 2015 (10 years ago)10 January 2010 (15 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 cores38448
Core clock speed954 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistors915 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate30.537.200
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPS0.09504 TFLOPS
Gigaflopsno data142
ROPs88
TMUs3216

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).

Laptop sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0PCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options-+

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 typeDDR3DDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB1 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed900 MHzUp to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s22.4 GB/s
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 outputsDual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI
Multi monitor supportno data+
HDMI-+
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-
Power managementno data8.0

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.52.1
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA++

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.

GeForce 920M 1.60
+321%
GT 325M 0.38

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 920M 717
+324%
GT 325M 169

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 920M 5587
+159%
GT 325M 2161

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 HD17
+325%
4−5
−325%
4K9
+350%
2−3
−350%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 29
+383%
6−7
−383%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+433%
3−4
−433%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 35−40
+37%
27−30
−37%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 35−40
+140%
14−16
−140%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Dota 2 27
+170%
10−11
−170%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Fortnite 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Forza Horizon 4 15
+400%
3−4
−400%
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 6
+500%
1−2
−500%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 0−1
Metro Exodus 2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7
+75%
4−5
−75%
Valorant 35−40
+37%
27−30
−37%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Dota 2 25
+150%
10−11
−150%
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%
Hogwarts Legacy 3−4 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 35−40
+37%
27−30
−37%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Fortnite 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 1−2 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
+1100%
1−2
−1100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Valorant 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Hogwarts Legacy 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4 0−1

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 9−10
+200%
3−4
−200%

4K
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how GeForce 920M and GT 325M compete in popular games:

  • GeForce 920M is 325% faster in 1080p
  • GeForce 920M is 350% faster in 4K

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

  • in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce 920M is 1100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce 920M is ahead in 24 tests (92%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (8%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.60 0.38
Recency 13 March 2015 10 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 1 GB
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 23 Watt

GeForce 920M has a 321.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 325M, on the other hand, has 43.5% lower power consumption.

The GeForce 920M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 325M in performance tests.

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 920M
GeForce 920M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 325M
GeForce GT 325M

Other comparisons

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.


3.1 1368 votes

Rate GeForce 920M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 12 votes

Rate GeForce GT 325M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 920M or GeForce GT 325M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.