Radeon Pro 5600M vs GeForce GT 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GT 320M with Radeon Pro 5600M, including specs and performance data.

GT 320M
2009
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.27

Pro 5600M outperforms 320M by a whopping 8159% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1413284
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.4834.29
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020)
GPU code nameG96CNavi 12
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date15 June 2009 (16 years ago)15 June 2020 (5 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 cores322560
Core clock speed500 MHz1000 MHz
Boost clock speedno data1030 MHz
Number of transistors314 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology55 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rate8.000164.8
Floating-point processing power0.08 TFLOPS5.274 TFLOPS
ROPs864
TMUs16160
L2 Cache32 KB4 MB

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 sizedmedium sized
InterfaceMXM-IIPCIe 4.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeGDDR3HBM2
Maximum RAM amount512 MB8 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit2048 Bit
Memory clock speed800 MHz770 MHz
Memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s394.2 GB/s
Shared memory--
Resizable BAR-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model4.06.5
OpenGL3.34.6
OpenCL1.12.0
VulkanN/A1.2
CUDA1.1-

Synthetic benchmarks

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
Pro 5600M 22.30
+8159%

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 113
Samples: 361
Pro 5600M 9324
+8151%
Samples: 29

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

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4800%
45−50
+4800%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−820%
45−50
+820%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4800%
45−50
+4800%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2933%
90−95
+2933%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−820%
45−50
+820%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1171%
85−90
+1171%
Valorant 24−27
−540%
160−170
+540%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 12−14
−1831%
250−260
+1831%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4800%
45−50
+4800%
Dota 2 9−10
−1222%
110−120
+1222%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2933%
90−95
+2933%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−820%
45−50
+820%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1171%
85−90
+1171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1240%
65−70
+1240%
Valorant 24−27
−540%
160−170
+540%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−4800%
45−50
+4800%
Dota 2 9−10
−1222%
110−120
+1222%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
−2933%
90−95
+2933%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
−820%
45−50
+820%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8
−1171%
85−90
+1171%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1240%
65−70
+1240%
Valorant 24−27
−540%
160−170
+540%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 3−4
−1500%
45−50
+1500%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4
−5700%
170−180
+5700%

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2
−5700%
55−60
+5700%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
−3500%
35−40
+3500%

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−200%
40−45
+200%
Valorant 1−2
−13100%
130−140
+13100%

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−2300%
24−27
+2300%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3
−1100%
24−27
+1100%

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 120−130
+0%
120−130
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%
Forza Horizon 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 80−85
+0%
80−85
+0%
Metro Exodus 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 90−95
+0%
90−95
+0%
Far Cry 5 70−75
+0%
70−75
+0%

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 110−120
+0%
110−120
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 160−170
+0%
160−170
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Metro Exodus 30−33
+0%
30−33
+0%
Valorant 190−200
+0%
190−200
+0%

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 60−65
+0%
60−65
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Far Cry 5 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 50−55
+0%
50−55
+0%

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Metro Exodus 18−20
+0%
18−20
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 30−35
+0%
30−35
+0%

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 35−40
+0%
35−40
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Dota 2 75−80
+0%
75−80
+0%
Far Cry 5 24−27
+0%
24−27
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 40−45
+0%
40−45
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

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

  • in Valorant, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the Pro 5600M is 13100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Pro 5600M performs better in 30 tests (45%)
  • there's a draw in 36 tests (55%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.27 22.30
Recency 15 June 2009 15 June 2020
Maximum RAM amount 512 MB 8 GB
Chip lithography 55 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 50 Watt

GT 320M has 257.1% lower power consumption.

Pro 5600M, on the other hand, has a 8159.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon Pro 5600M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GT 320M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon Pro 5600M is a mobile workstation one.

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
AMD Radeon Pro 5600M
Radeon Pro 5600M

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.


3.3 138 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 84 votes

Rate Radeon Pro 5600M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce GT 320M or Radeon Pro 5600M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.