Radeon HD 6320 vs ATI HD 3850 X2
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 3850 X2 with Radeon HD 6320, including specs and performance data.
HD 3850 X2 outperforms HD 6320 by a whopping 463% 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 | 943 | 1348 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.08 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 1.08 | 1.50 |
| Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | RV670 | Loveland |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 4 April 2008 (18 years ago) | 15 August 2011 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $349 | $554.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
ATI HD 3850 X2 and HD 6320 have a nearly equal value for money.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 320 ×2 | 80 |
| Core clock speed | 669 MHz | 508 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 600 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 666 million | 450 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 18 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 10.70 ×2 | 4.064 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.4282 TFLOPS ×2 | 0.08128 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 ×2 | 4 |
| TMUs | 16 ×2 | 8 |
| 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).
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | IGP |
| Length | 267 mm | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no 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 type | GDDR3 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB ×2 | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit ×2 | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 828 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 52.99 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | N/A | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 27 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.97 | 0.35 |
| Recency | 4 April 2008 | 15 August 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 55 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 18 Watt |
ATI HD 3850 X2 has a 463% higher aggregate performance score.
HD 6320, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 38% more advanced lithography process, and 678% lower power consumption.
The Radeon HD 3850 X2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 6320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 3850 X2 is a desktop graphics card while Radeon HD 6320 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
