GeForce GT 320M vs GTX 280M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce GTX 280M and GeForce GT 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

GTX 280M
2009
1 GB GDDR3, 75 Watt
1.49
+452%

GTX 280M outperforms GT 320M by a whopping 452% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking9801346
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.361.32
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameG92G96C
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date3 March 2009 (15 years ago)15 June 2009 (15 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 cores12832
Core clock speed585 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors754 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology65 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate37.448.000
Floating-point processing power0.3745 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
Gigaflops562no data
ROPs168
TMUs6416

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 sizelargemedium sized
Bus supportPCI-E 2.0no data
InterfaceMXM-IVMXM-II
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options+-
MXM TypeMXM 3.0 Type-Bno 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 typeGDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount1 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speedUp to 950 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth61 GB/s25.6 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 ConnectorsHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIDisplayPortLVDSVGANo outputs
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIS/PDIFno data

Supported technologies

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

Power management8.0no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model4.04.0
OpenGL2.13.3
OpenCL1.11.1
VulkanN/AN/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 280M 1.49
+452%
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 280M 575
+448%
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 280M 6672
+454%
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.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
+100%
3−4
−100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+87.5%
8−9
−87.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10−12
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 30−35
+17.9%
27−30
−17.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Far Cry New Dawn 2−3 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Hitman 3 7−8
+16.7%
6−7
−16.7%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+150%
2−3
−150%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%

4K
High Preset

Far Cry New Dawn 1−2 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2 0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 0−1 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

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

  • in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 280M is 150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 280M is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.49 0.27
Recency 3 March 2009 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 1 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 65 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 14 Watt

GTX 280M has a 451.9% higher aggregate performance score, and a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 months, a 18.2% more advanced lithography process, and 435.7% lower power consumption.

The GeForce GTX 280M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce GTX 280M
GeForce GTX 280M
NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M
GeForce GT 320M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


4.1 8 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 280M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 126 votes

Rate GeForce GT 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.