GeForce GT 320M vs GTX 1080

Place in the ranking	104	1351
Place by popularity	63	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	19.28	no data
Power efficiency	15.46	1.33
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP104	G96C
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	27 May 2016 (8 years ago)	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$599	no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	2560	32
Core clock speed	1607 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1733 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	7,200 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	16 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	14 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	94 °C	no data
Texture fill rate	277.3	8.000
Floating-point processing power	8.873 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	160	16

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	no data	medium sized
Bus support	PCIe 3.0	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-II
Length	267 mm	no data
Height	4.376" (11.1 cm)	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Recommended system power (PSU)	500 Watt	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 8-pin	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	GDDR5X	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	256 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	10 GB/s	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	320 GB/s	25.6 GB/s
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 1.42, HDMI 2.0b, DL-DVI	No outputs
Multi monitor support	+	no data
HDMI	+	-
G-SYNC support	+	-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost	3.0	no data
VR Ready	+	no data
Ansel	+	no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.5	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	+	1.1

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. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GTX 1080 40.47
+14889%

GT 320M 0.27

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.

GTX 1080 15555
+14714%

GT 320M 105

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.

GTX 1080 53598
+4348%

GT 320M 1205

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	126	0−1
1440p	75	0−1
4K	60	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	4.75	no data
1440p	7.99	no data
4K	9.98	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	85−90 +1317%	6−7 −1317%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +4250%	2−3 −4250%
Elden Ring	140−150	0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	84	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	85−90 +1317%	6−7 −1317%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +4250%	2−3 −4250%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 +3860%	5−6 −3860%
Metro Exodus	111	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	114 +2750%	4−5 −2750%
Valorant	160−170 +16100%	1−2 −16100%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	130	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	85−90 +1317%	6−7 −1317%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +4250%	2−3 −4250%
Dota 2	113	0−1
Elden Ring	140−150	0−1
Far Cry 5	75 +1150%	6−7 −1150%
Fortnite	158 +15700%	1−2 −15700%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 +3860%	5−6 −3860%
Grand Theft Auto V	119	0−1
Metro Exodus	83	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	242 +3933%	6−7 −3933%
Red Dead Redemption 2	53 +1225%	4−5 −1225%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	142 +3450%	4−5 −3450%
Valorant	160−170 +16100%	1−2 −16100%
World of Tanks	272 +2167%	12−14 −2167%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	73	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	47 +683%	6−7 −683%
Cyberpunk 2077	85−90 +4250%	2−3 −4250%
Dota 2	100	0−1
Far Cry 5	179 +2883%	6−7 −2883%
Forza Horizon 4	190−200 +3860%	5−6 −3860%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	88 +1367%	6−7 −1367%
Valorant	160−170 +16100%	1−2 −16100%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2	72	0−1
Elden Ring	80−85	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	72	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	170−180 +17400%	1−2 −17400%
Red Dead Redemption 2	35	0−1
World of Tanks	250−260 +25500%	1−2 −25500%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	72	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	28 −14.3%	30−35 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	40−45 +1267%	3−4 −1267%
Far Cry 5	118 +2850%	4−5 −2850%
Forza Horizon 4	110−120	0−1
Metro Exodus	82	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	70−75 +1675%	4−5 −1675%
Valorant	120−130 +3125%	4−5 −3125%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	40−45	0−1
Dota 2	74 +393%	14−16 −393%
Elden Ring	40−45	0−1
Grand Theft Auto V	74 +393%	14−16 −393%
Metro Exodus	28	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	106 +10500%	1−2 −10500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	21	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	74 +393%	14−16 −393%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	42	0−1
Counter-Strike 2	40−45	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	18−20 +800%	2−3 −800%
Dota 2	129 +760%	14−16 −760%
Far Cry 5	59	0−1
Fortnite	54	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	65−70	0−1
Valorant	65−70	0−1

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 1080 is 17400% faster.
in Counter-Strike 2, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 320M is 14% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GTX 1080 is ahead in 30 tests (97%)
GT 320M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	40.47	0.27
Recency	27 May 2016	15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount	8 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	16 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	180 Watt	14 Watt

GTX 1080 has a 14888.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 243.8% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 1185.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 1080 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 1080 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 320M is a notebook one.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.