GeForce RTX 3090 vs GT 320M

Place in the ranking	1350	25
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	14.96
Power efficiency	1.33	13.69
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	Ampere (2020−2024)
GPU code name	G96C	GA102
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	1 September 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$1,499

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	10496
Core clock speed	500 MHz	1395 MHz
Boost clock speed	no data	1695 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	28,300 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	350 Watt
Texture fill rate	8.000	556.0
Floating-point processing power	0.08 TFLOPS	35.58 TFLOPS
ROPs	8	112
TMUs	16	328
Tensor Cores	no data	328
Ray Tracing Cores	no data	82

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
Interface	MXM-II	PCIe 4.0 x16
Length	no data	336 mm
Width	no data	3-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	1x 12-pin

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	GDDR6X
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	24 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	384 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	1219 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	936.2 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	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort
HDMI	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model	4.0	6.5
OpenGL	3.3	4.6
OpenCL	1.1	2.0
Vulkan	N/A	1.2
CUDA	1.1	8.5

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

RTX 3090 69.51
+25644%

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

RTX 3090 26713
+25341%

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.

GT 320M 1205

RTX 3090 124350
+10220%

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	0−1	198
1440p	-0−1	128
4K	-0−1	87

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	7.57
1440p	no data	11.71
4K	no data	17.23

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −2344%	220 +2344%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −6800%	207 +6800%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1989%	188 +1989%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −4933%	151 +4933%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −10000%	505 +10000%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −3150%	130 +3150%

Full HD
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1689%	161 +1689%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −4400%	135 +4400%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −2350%	147 +2350%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −7940%	402 +7940%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 −3483%	210−220 +3483%
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5 −3200%	132 +3200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −4250%	170−180 +4250%
World of Tanks	12−14 −2225%	270−280 +2225%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	9−10 −1522%	146 +1522%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −3933%	121 +3933%
Far Cry 5	6−7 −2083%	130−140 +2083%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6 −6920%	351 +6920%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	6−7 −3483%	210−220 +3483%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS

1−2

−17400%

170−180
+17400%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	0−1	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −2800%	87 +2800%
Far Cry 5	4−5 −3900%	160−170 +3900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5 −3700%	152 +3700%
Valorant	4−5 −7275%	295 +7275%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −529%	40−45 +529%
Dota 2	14−16 −1113%	182 +1113%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 −1113%	182 +1113%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	0−1	200−210
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 −1113%	182 +1113%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	0−1	91
Counter-Strike 2	7−8 −214%	22 +214%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −2150%	45 +2150%
Dota 2	14−16 −1247%	202 +1247%
Valorant	0−1	188

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	102 +0%	102 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	184 +0%	184 +0%
Metro Exodus	169 +0%	169 +0%
Valorant	393 +0%	393 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	110−120 +0%	110−120 +0%
Dota 2	186 +0%	186 +0%
Fortnite	270−280 +0%	270−280 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	182 +0%	182 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	171 +0%	171 +0%
Metro Exodus	150 +0%	150 +0%
Valorant	222 +0%	222 +0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	95 +0%	95 +0%
Dota 2	213 +0%	213 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	159 +0%	159 +0%
Valorant	296 +0%	296 +0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	30−35 +0%	30−35 +0%
Dota 2	150 +0%	150 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	150 +0%	150 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	92 +0%	92 +0%
World of Tanks	450−500 +0%	450−500 +0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	91 +0%	91 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	266 +0%	266 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	134 +0%	134 +0%
Metro Exodus	139 +0%	139 +0%

4K
High Preset

Metro Exodus	76 +0%	76 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	64 +0%	64 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5	100−110 +0%	100−110 +0%
Fortnite	95−100 +0%	95−100 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	159 +0%	159 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	83 +0%	83 +0%

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RTX 3090 is 17400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

RTX 3090 is ahead in 31 test (51%)
there's a draw in 30 tests (49%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	0.27	69.51
Recency	15 June 2009	1 September 2020
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	24 GB
Chip lithography	55 nm	8 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	350 Watt

GT 320M has 2400% lower power consumption.

RTX 3090, on the other hand, has a 25644.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 4700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 587.5% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce RTX 3090 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 RTX 3090 is a desktop one.

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