Radeon Vega 7 vs GeForce GT 325M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GT 325M and Radeon Vega 7, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Vega 7 outperforms GT 325M by a whopping 1598% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1256 | 541 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 10 |
| Power efficiency | 1.31 | 11.40 |
| Architecture | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) | GCN 5.1 (2018−2022) |
| GPU code name | GT216 | Cezanne |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (15 years ago) | 13 April 2021 (3 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 cores | 48 | 448 |
| Core clock speed | 450 MHz | 300 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1900 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 486 million | 9,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 7.200 | 53.20 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.09504 TFLOPS | 1.702 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | 142 | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 8 |
| TMUs | 16 | 28 |
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 | IGP |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 22.4 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI | No outputs |
| 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 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 2.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 2.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2 |
| CUDA | + | - |
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
−2300%
| 24
+2300%
|
| 1440p | 1−2
−2400%
| 25
+2400%
|
| 4K | 1−2
−1700%
| 18
+1700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1700%
|
18
+1700%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−1300%
|
14
+1300%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1133%
|
37
+1133%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−178%
|
75−80
+178%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−750%
|
16−18
+750%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
−287%
|
58
+287%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−900%
|
10
+900%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1500%
|
160−170
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−1067%
|
35
+1067%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−229%
|
23
+229%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−375%
|
19
+375%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
−170%
|
73
+170%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
−100%
|
14−16
+100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−800%
|
9
+800%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
−1500%
|
160−170
+1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−800%
|
27
+800%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−257%
|
24−27
+257%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
−225%
|
13
+225%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+8%
|
25
−8%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 0−1 | 50−55 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−1850%
|
35−40
+1850%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−1600%
|
16−18
+1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−1000%
|
10−12
+1000%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 14−16 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 6−7 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−20%
|
18−20
+20%
|
| Valorant | 3−4
−733%
|
25
+733%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−600%
|
7−8
+600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 2−3
−250%
|
7−8
+250%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 28
+0%
|
28
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 63
+0%
|
63
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 13
+0%
|
13
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Grand Theft Auto V | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 48
+0%
|
48
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how GT 325M and Vega 7 compete in popular games:
- Vega 7 is 2300% faster in 1080p
- Vega 7 is 2400% faster in 1440p
- Vega 7 is 1700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 325M is 8% faster.
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the Vega 7 is 1850% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GT 325M is ahead in 1 test (2%)
- Vega 7 is ahead in 30 tests (50%)
- there's a draw in 29 tests (48%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.44 | 7.47 |
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 13 April 2021 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 23 Watt | 45 Watt |
GT 325M has 95.7% lower power consumption.
Vega 7, on the other hand, has a 1597.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 471.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon Vega 7 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 325M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
