GeForce 320M vs ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4870 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Mobility Radeon HD 4870 X2 and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
Mobility HD 4870 X2 outperforms 320M by a whopping 470% 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 | 818 | 1290 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 1.69 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | M98 | C89 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 January 2009 (16 years ago) | 1 April 2010 (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 | 800 ×2 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 550 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 956 million | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 22.00 ×2 | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.88 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.0912 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 8 |
| TMUs | 40 ×2 | 16 |
| L1 Cache | 160 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 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 |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
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 | 1 GB ×2 | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 700 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 89.6 GB/s ×2 | 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 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
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.
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.
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 | 44
+83.3%
| 24
−83.3%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55−60
+224%
|
16−18
−224%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Dota 2 | 27−30
+155%
|
10−12
−155%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14−16
+75%
|
8−9
−75%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Valorant | 45−50
+70.4%
|
27−30
−70.4%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 14−16
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
+1000%
|
2−3
−1000%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 24−27
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Valorant | 27−30
+575%
|
4−5
−575%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+7.1%
|
14−16
−7.1%
|
| Valorant | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
4K
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
This is how ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:
- ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 is 83% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 is 1000% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 surpassed GeForce 320M in all 28 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.85 | 0.50 |
| Recency | 9 January 2009 | 1 April 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
ATI Mobility HD 4870 X2 has a 470% higher aggregate performance score.
GeForce 320M, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 37.5% more advanced lithography process.
The Mobility Radeon HD 4870 X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 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.
