Radeon RX 5700 vs GeForce GT 325M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 325M with Radeon RX 5700, including specs and performance data.
RX 5700 outperforms GT 325M by a whopping 8440% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1303 | 163 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 61 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 35.80 |
| Power efficiency | 1.32 | 14.46 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Navi 10 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 7 July 2019 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $349 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 48 | 2304 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 1465 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1725 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 10,300 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 180 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 248.4 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.09504 TFLOPS | 7.949 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 142 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 64 |
| TMUs | 16 | 144 |
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 |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 4.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 268 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | 1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | 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 | 1750 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 GB/s | 448.0 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 Connectors | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI | 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | 8.0 | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.1 (10_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 6.5 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.0 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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.
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.
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.
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 | 1−2
−11300%
| 114
+11300%
|
| 1440p | 0−1 | 69 |
| 4K | 0−1 | 43 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | no data | 3.06 |
| 1440p | no data | 5.06 |
| 4K | no data | 8.12 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−8300%
|
84
+8300%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−2850%
|
118
+2850%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−7400%
|
75
+7400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3200%
|
132
+3200%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−2325%
|
97
+2325%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−2057%
|
151
+2057%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1031%
|
294
+1031%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−1753%
|
270−280
+1753%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−6600%
|
67
+6600%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1460%
|
156
+1460%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−3150%
|
130
+3150%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−1975%
|
83
+1975%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 87 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1957%
|
144
+1957%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−2840%
|
147
+2840%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−1019%
|
291
+1019%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−5700%
|
58
+5700%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1360%
|
146
+1360%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
−2850%
|
118
+2850%
|
| God of War | 4−5
−1350%
|
58
+1350%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−1886%
|
139
+1886%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−1720%
|
91
+1720%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−515%
|
160
+515%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 2−3
−4250%
|
87
+4250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
−24000%
|
240−250
+24000%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
−4275%
|
170−180
+4275%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−10200%
|
103
+10200%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 77 |
4K
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−380%
|
72
+380%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−11450%
|
231
+11450%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−2850%
|
59
+2850%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−1850%
|
39
+1850%
|
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 344
+0%
|
344
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 115
+0%
|
115
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 307
+0%
|
307
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 156
+0%
|
156
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 166
+0%
|
166
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 150
+0%
|
150
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 105
+0%
|
105
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 154
+0%
|
154
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 144
+0%
|
144
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 140
+0%
|
140
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 132
+0%
|
132
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 137
+0%
|
137
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 97
+0%
|
97
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 135
+0%
|
135
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 118
+0%
|
118
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 72
+0%
|
72
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 51
+0%
|
51
+0%
|
| Valorant | 277
+0%
|
277
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 81
+0%
|
81
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 93
+0%
|
93
+0%
|
| God of War | 46
+0%
|
46
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 31
+0%
|
31
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 54
+0%
|
54
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 47
+0%
|
47
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 70
+0%
|
70
+0%
|
| God of War | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
This is how GT 325M and RX 5700 compete in popular games:
- RX 5700 is 11300% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 5700 is 24000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX 5700 performs better in 30 tests (48%)
- there's a draw in 33 tests (52%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.40 | 34.16 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 7 July 2019 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 8 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 180 Watt |
GT 325M has 682.6% lower power consumption.
RX 5700, on the other hand, has a 8440% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 5700 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 325M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GT 325M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon RX 5700 is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
