GeForce 7200 GS vs ATI Radeon IGP 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon IGP 320M with GeForce 7200 GS, including specs and performance data.

ATI IGP 320M
2002
0.01

7200 GS outperforms ATI IGP 320M by a whopping 400% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking15351485
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureRage 7 (2001−2006)Curie (2003−2013)
GPU code nameRS100G72
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date5 October 2002 (22 years ago)18 January 2006 (19 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 cores2no data
Core clock speed160 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed160 MHzno data
Number of transistors30 million112 million
Manufacturing process technology180 nm90 nm
Texture fill rate0.161.800
ROPs12
TMUs14

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).

InterfaceAGP 4xPCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

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 typeSystem SharedDDR2
Maximum RAM amountSystem Shared128 MB
Memory bus widthSystem Shared64 Bit
Memory clock speedSystem Shared334 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data5.344 GB/s
Shared memory+no data

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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API and SDK compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX7.09.0c (9_3)
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGL1.42.1
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

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.

ATI IGP 320M 0.01
7200 GS 0.05
+400%

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.

ATI IGP 320M 3
7200 GS 23
+667%

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

Atomic Heart 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
Valorant 24−27
−400%
120−130
+400%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 8−9
−400%
40−45
+400%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Dota 2 8−9
−400%
40−45
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Valorant 24−27
−400%
120−130
+400%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
Dota 2 8−9
−400%
40−45
+400%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
−400%
30−33
+400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Valorant 24−27
−400%
120−130
+400%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 0−1 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Forza Horizon 4 0−1 0−1

4K
High Preset

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
−400%
75−80
+400%
Valorant 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
−400%
5−6
+400%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
−400%
10−11
+400%

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.01 0.05
Recency 5 October 2002 18 January 2006
Chip lithography 180 nm 90 nm

7200 GS has a 400% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

The GeForce 7200 GS is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon IGP 320M is a notebook card while GeForce 7200 GS is a desktop one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


ATI Radeon IGP 320M
Radeon IGP 320M
NVIDIA GeForce 7200 GS
GeForce 7200 GS

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3 17 votes

Rate Radeon IGP 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 78 votes

Rate GeForce 7200 GS on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon IGP 320M or GeForce 7200 GS, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.