Radeon HD 6470M vs GeForce GT 320M

Place in the ranking	1346	1206
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.01
Power efficiency	1.32	no data
Architecture	Tesla (2006−2010)	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)
GPU code name	G96C	Seymour
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)	4 January 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$569.99

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	160
Core clock speed	500 MHz	700 MHz
Number of transistors	314 million	370 million
Manufacturing process technology	55 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	14 Watt	no data
Texture fill rate	8.000	5.600
Floating-point processing power	0.08 TFLOPS	0.224 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
Interface	MXM-II	PCIe 2.0 x16
Supplementary power connectors	None	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	GDDR3	DDR3
Maximum RAM amount	512 MB	512 MB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	64 Bit
Memory clock speed	800 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	25.6 GB/s	12.8 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

API compatibility

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

DirectX	11.1 (10_0)	11.2 (11_0)
Shader Model	4.0	5.0
OpenGL	3.3	4.4
OpenCL	1.1	1.2
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

HD 6470M 0.59
+119%

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

HD 6470M 227
+116%

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

HD 6470M 1706
+41.6%

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:

900p	4−5 −150%	10 +150%
Full HD	5−6 −160%	13 +160%

Cost per frame, $

1080p

no data

43.85

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3

−50%

3−4
+50%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −37.5%	10−12 +37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −37.5%	10−12 +37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
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 −33.3%	4−5 +33.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −50%	3−4 +50%
Hitman 3	4−5 −25%	5−6 +25%
Horizon Zero Dawn	8−9 −37.5%	10−12 +37.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −50%	6−7 +50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	9−10 −11.1%	10−11 +11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	27−30 −7.1%	30−33 +7.1%