GeForce GT 320M vs MX350

Place in the ranking	538	1347
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	25.07	1.33
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	GP107	G96C
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	10 February 2020 (4 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 cores	640	32
Core clock speed	747 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	937 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	3,300 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	14 Watt
Texture fill rate	29.98	8.000
Floating-point processing power	1.199 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	8
TMUs	32	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
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-II
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1752 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	56.06 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

No outputs

Supported technologies

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

Optimus

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	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	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.

GeForce MX350 7.28
+2596%

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.

GeForce MX350 2806
+2572%

GT 320M 105

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	26	0−1
1440p	31 +3000%	1−2 −3000%
4K	25	0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

12−14
+500%

2−3

−500%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	22 +633%	3−4 −633%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	13	0−1
Battlefield 5	21−24	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	19 +850%	2−3 −850%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	26	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	35 +3400%	1−2 −3400%
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Hitman 3	20 +400%	4−5 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	129 +1513%	8−9 −1513%
Metro Exodus	37 +3600%	1−2 −3600%
Red Dead Redemption 2	32 +3100%	1−2 −3100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	24−27 +500%	4−5 −500%
Watch Dogs: Legion	95 +239%	27−30 −239%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	26 +767%	3−4 −767%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6	0−1
Battlefield 5	21−24	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	23	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	25	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	45−50 +4700%	1−2 −4700%
Hitman 3	20 +400%	4−5 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	116 +1350%	8−9 −1350%
Metro Exodus	28 +2700%	1−2 −2700%
Red Dead Redemption 2	24	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	25 +525%	4−5 −525%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	21−24 +144%	9−10 −144%
Watch Dogs: Legion	88 +214%	27−30 −214%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	8 +167%	3−4 −167%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	10−11	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6 +200%	2−3 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	12−14 +500%	2−3 −500%
Far Cry 5	15	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	19	0−1
Hitman 3	17 +325%	4−5 −325%
Horizon Zero Dawn	20 +150%	8−9 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	19 +375%	4−5 −375%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	16 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion	6 −367%	27−30 +367%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	14−16	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	10−12	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7−8	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7−8	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	8−9	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	24−27	0−1
Hitman 3	10−12 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn	14−16 +650%	2−3 −650%
Metro Exodus	8−9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	6−7	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	45−50 +4500%	1−2 −4500%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

12−14
+500%

2−3

−500%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	6−7	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	5−6	0−1
Hitman 3	3−4	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	24−27	0−1
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	4−5	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	3−4	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	1−2	0−1
Far Cry 5	4−5	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	8−9	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

7−8
+250%

2−3

−250%

This is how GeForce MX350 and GT 320M compete in popular games:

GeForce MX350 is 3000% faster in 1440p

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

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX350 is 1513% faster.
in Watch Dogs: Legion, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 320M is 367% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX350 is ahead in 28 tests (97%)
GT 320M is ahead in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	7.28	0.27
Recency	10 February 2020	15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount	2 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	20 Watt	14 Watt

GeForce MX350 has a 2596.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 292.9% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 42.9% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX350 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.