Radeon HD 6320 vs GeForce GTX 1050
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 359 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 19 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.95 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | N17P-G1 | Zacate |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 25 October 2016 (7 years ago) | 16 November 2010 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | $554.99 |
| Current price | $211 (1.9x MSRP) | $115 (0.2x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
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 | 640 | 80 |
| CUDA cores | 640 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1290 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1392 MHz | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,300 million | 450 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 97 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 58.20 | 4.800 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,862 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce GTX 1050 and Radeon HD 6320 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.
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 5.7" (14.5 cm) | no data |
| Height | 4.38" (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Recommended system power (PSU) | 300 Watt | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | - | no data |
| SLI | - | 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 | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 7008 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 112 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 | DP 1.4, HDMI 2.0b, Dual Link-DVI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | no data |
| HDCP | 2.2 | no data |
| G-SYNC support | + | no data |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| GameStream | + | no data |
| GPU Boost | 3.0 | no data |
| VR Ready | + | no data |
| Ansel | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | + | no data |
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%
GeForce GTX 1050 outperforms Radeon HD 6320 by 3334% 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%
GeForce GTX 1050 outperforms Radeon HD 6320 by 3541% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.
3DMark 11 Performance GPU
3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
GeForce GTX 1050 outperforms Radeon HD 6320 by 2738% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 25 October 2016 | 16 November 2010 |
| Cost | $109 | $554.99 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | 18 Watt |
We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 1050 and Radeon HD 6320. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 1050 is a desktop card while Radeon HD 6320 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
