ATI Radeon HD 4270 vs GeForce GT 320M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 320M and Radeon HD 4270, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GT 320M
2009
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.27

ATI HD 4270 outperforms GT 320M by a minimal 4% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking13571351
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.35no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RV6xx (2008−2010)
GPU code nameG96CRS880M
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date15 June 2009 (15 years ago)1 May 2010 (14 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 cores3240
Core clock speed500 MHz590 MHz
Number of transistors314 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Wattno data
Texture fill rate8.000no data
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs16no 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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
InterfaceMXM-IIno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount512 MB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed800 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/sno data
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 outputsno data

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)10.1
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA1.1-

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.

GT 320M 0.27
ATI HD 4270 0.28
+3.7%

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
ATI HD 4270 109
+3.8%

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
+424%
ATI HD 4270 230

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

Atomic Heart 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−8.3%
12−14
+8.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Dota 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1

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

  • in Atomic Heart, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the ATI HD 4270 is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • ATI HD 4270 is ahead in 5 tests (15%)
  • there's a draw in 28 tests (85%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 0.28
Recency 15 June 2009 1 May 2010

ATI HD 4270 has a 3.7% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 10 months.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between GeForce GT 320M and Radeon HD 4270.

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 GT 320M
GeForce GT 320M
ATI Radeon HD 4270
Radeon HD 4270

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.


3.3 132 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.2 6 votes

Rate Radeon HD 4270 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 320M or Radeon HD 4270, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.