GeForce RTX 2070 Super vs GT 325M
General info
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | 63 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 93 |
| Value for money | no data | 46.50 |
| Architecture | GT2xx (2009−2012) | Turing (2018−2021) |
| GPU code name | N11P-GV1 | Turing TU104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 2 July 2019 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $499 |
| Current price | $310 | $261 (0.5x MSRP) |
Value for money
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Technical specs
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 48 | 2560 |
| CUDA cores | 48 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1605 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1770 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 13,600 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 215 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 283.2 |
| Floating-point performance | 95.04 gflops | no data |
| Gigaflops | 142 | no data |
Size and compatibility
Information on GeForce GT 325M and GeForce RTX 2070 Super compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.
| Laptop size | medium sized | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | no data |
Memory
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 | GDDR2, GDDR3, DDR3 | GDDR6 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | 14000 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 GB/s | 448.0 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Video outputs and ports
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 | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort, 1x USB Type-C |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | no data | + |
Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | no data | + |
API support
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 Ultimate (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 7.5 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.
Benchmark coverage: 25%
RTX 2070 Super outperforms GT 325M by 10700% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
RTX 2070 Super outperforms GT 325M by 4028% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
Advantages and disadvantages
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 2 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 215 Watt |
We couldn't decide between GeForce GT 325M and GeForce RTX 2070 Super. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GT 325M is a notebook card while GeForce RTX 2070 Super is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar GPU comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
