GeForce 320M vs Radeon R6 (Mullins)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R6 (Mullins) and GeForce 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R6 (Mullins)
2014
0.55
+17%

R6 (Mullins) outperforms 320M by a moderate 17% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12121241
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.62
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 (2014)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameMullinsC89
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date29 April 2014 (10 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 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 cores12848
Core clock speed500 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistorsno data486 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data23 Watt
Texture fill rateno data7.200
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 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 typeno dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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 dataNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

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 HD27−30
+12.5%
24
−12.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 18−20
+5.9%
16−18
−5.9%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 12−14
+9.1%
10−12
−9.1%
Forza Horizon 4 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9
+14.3%
7−8
−14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+20%
5−6
−20%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

This is how R6 (Mullins) and GeForce 320M compete in popular games:

  • R6 (Mullins) is 13% faster in 1080p

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

  • in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the Low Preset, the R6 (Mullins) is 100% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R6 (Mullins) is ahead in 13 tests (42%)
  • there's a draw in 18 tests (58%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.55 0.47
Recency 29 April 2014 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 40 nm

R6 (Mullins) has a 17% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 42.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R6 (Mullins) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 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 R6 (Mullins)
Radeon R6 (Mullins)
NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 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.


No user ratings yet.

Rate Radeon R6 (Mullins) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 62 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R6 (Mullins) or GeForce 320M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.