ATI Radeon IGP 320M vs GeForce GTX 560M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 560M and Radeon IGP 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
560M outperforms IGP 320M by a whopping 30500% 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 | 811 | 1591 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 3.14 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014) | Rage 7 (2001−2006) |
| GPU code name | GF116 | RS100 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 May 2011 (14 years ago) | 5 October 2002 (23 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 | 192 | 2 |
| Core clock speed | 775 MHz | 160 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 160 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 30 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 75 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 24.80 | 0.16 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.5952 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 24 | 1 |
| TMUs | 32 | 1 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 384 KB | no data |
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 | large | no data |
| Bus support | PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | AGP 4x |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | None |
| SLI options | 2-way | - |
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 | 1536 MB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | Up to 192 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1250 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | Up to 60 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
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 | No outputs | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| 3D Blu-Ray | + | - |
| 3D Gaming | + | - |
| Optimus | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 API | 7.0 |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 1.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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:
| 900p | 31 | -0−1 |
| Full HD | 39 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 4−5 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+104%
|
21−24
−104%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+544%
|
9−10
−544%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+104%
|
21−24
−104%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 30−33
+329%
|
7−8
−329%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+133%
|
6−7
−133%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+104%
|
21−24
−104%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 16−18 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 27−30 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 6−7 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GTX 560M is 650% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GTX 560M surpassed ATI IGP 320M in all 19 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.06 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 30 May 2011 | 5 October 2002 |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 180 nm |
GTX 560M has a 30500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, and a 350% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce GTX 560M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 320M 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.
