Radeon R5 M320 vs HD 4770
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 4770 with Radeon R5 M320, including specs and performance data.
ATI HD 4770 outperforms R5 M320 by a whopping 100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in performance ranking | 816 | 1038 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.29 | no data |
Architecture | TeraScale (2005−2013) | GCN 2.0 (2013−2017) |
GPU code name | RV740 | Exo UL/ULT/ULP |
Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
Release date | 28 April 2009 (15 years ago) | 7 May 2015 (9 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $109 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
Pipelines / CUDA cores | 640 | 320 |
Compute units | no data | 5 |
Core clock speed | 750 MHz | 855 MHz |
Boost clock speed | no data | 855 MHz |
Number of transistors | 826 million | 690 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 28 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | unknown |
Texture fill rate | 24.00 | 17.10 |
Floating-point performance | 960.0 gflops | 547.2 gflops |
Floating-point performance | 0.96 gflops | 0.5472 gflops |
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).
Bus support | no data | PCIe 3.0 |
Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x8 |
Length | 203 mm | no data |
Width | 2-slot | no data |
Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | DDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
Memory bus width | 128 Bit | 64 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 3200 MHz | 1000 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 16 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 | 2x DVI, 1x S-Video | No outputs |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
HD3D | - | + |
PowerTune | - | + |
DualGraphics | - | + |
ZeroCore | - | + |
Switchable graphics | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 10.1 (10_1) | DirectX® 12 |
Shader Model | 4.1 | 5.1 |
OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4 |
OpenCL | 1.1 | Not Listed |
Vulkan | N/A | + |
Mantle | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance 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.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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 Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 30−35
+0%
|
30−35
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 47 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 2.36 | 1.18 |
Recency | 28 April 2009 | 7 May 2015 |
Maximum RAM amount | 512 MB | 4 GB |
Chip lithography | 40 nm | 28 nm |
ATI HD 4770 has a 100% higher aggregate performance score.
R5 M320, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 6 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon HD 4770 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon R5 M320 in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon HD 4770 is a desktop card while Radeon R5 M320 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.