GeForce 210 vs GT 320M

Place in the ranking	1346	1326
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	1.32	0.66
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	G96C	GT218
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	12 October 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$29.49

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	32	16
Core clock speed	500 MHz	589 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	260 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	30.5 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	8.000	4.160
Floating-point processing power	0.08 TFLOPS	0.03936 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	4
TMUs	16	8

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 size	medium sized	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-II	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	168 mm
Height	no data	2.731" (6.9 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR3	GDDR2
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	500 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	8.0 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 Connectors	No outputs	DVIVGADisplayPort
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	Internal

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	4.0	4.1
OpenGL	3.3	3.1
OpenCL	1.1	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	1.1	+

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.

GT 320M 0.27

GeForce 210 0.30
+11.1%

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.

GT 320M 105

GeForce 210 116
+10.5%

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

+0%

2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Hitman 3	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Hitman 3	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%
Horizon Zero Dawn	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3

+0%

2−3
+0%

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.27	0.30
Recency	15 June 2009	12 October 2009
Chip lithography	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	30 Watt

GT 320M has 114.3% lower power consumption.

GeForce 210, on the other hand, has a 11.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce 210 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 320M is a notebook card while GeForce 210 is a desktop one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.