GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon R5 M330

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 M330 and GeForce GT 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R5 M330
2015
4 GB DDR3, 18 Watt
1.49
+452%

R5 M330 outperforms GT 320M by a whopping 452% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9881367
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency5.851.36
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameExoG96C
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date5 May 2015 (9 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 cores32032
Compute units5no data
Core clock speed955 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1030 MHzno data
Number of transistors690 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)18 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate20.608.000
Floating-point processing power0.6592 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs88
TMUs2016

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 sizeno datamedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8MXM-II
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 typeDDR3GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width64 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1000 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/s25.6 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 ConnectorsNo outputsNo 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 and SDK compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model5.04.0
OpenGL4.43.3
OpenCLNot Listed1.1
Vulkan+N/A
Mantle+-
CUDA-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.

R5 M330 1.49
+452%
GT 320M 0.27

  • Passmark

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.

R5 M330 595
+461%
GT 320M 106

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 HD9
+800%
1−2
−800%

FPS performance in popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • Full HD
    Epic Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    Epic Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    Epic Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Fortnite 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
Valorant 35−40
+34.6%
24−27
−34.6%
Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 30−35
+146%
12−14
−146%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Fortnite 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Grand Theft Auto V 2−3 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
Metro Exodus 2−3 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Valorant 35−40
+34.6%
24−27
−34.6%
Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Dota 2 18−20
+100%
9−10
−100%
Far Cry 5 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 8−9
+167%
3−4
−167%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+25%
4−5
−25%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 10−11
+42.9%
7−8
−42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Valorant 35−40
+34.6%
24−27
−34.6%
Fortnite 5−6 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 0−1 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10
+800%
1−2
−800%
Valorant 7−8
+600%
1−2
−600%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Forza Horizon 4 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Hogwarts Legacy 2−3 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 3−4
+200%
1−2
−200%
Fortnite 2−3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 7−8
+250%
2−3
−250%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 2−3 0−1
Far Cry 5 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Fortnite 3−4
+50%
2−3
−50%

This is how R5 M330 and GT 320M compete in popular games:

  • R5 M330 is 800% faster in 1080p

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R5 M330 is 800% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R5 M330 is ahead in 29 tests (94%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (6%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.49 0.27
Recency 5 May 2015 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 18 Watt 14 Watt

R5 M330 has a 451.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 28.6% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 M330 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

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.


AMD Radeon R5 M330
Radeon R5 M330
NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M
GeForce GT 320M

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.


2.9
1097 votes

Rate Radeon R5 M330 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3
132 votes

Rate GeForce GT 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R5 M330 or GeForce GT 320M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.