ATI Radeon IGP 320M vs R7 250E

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 250E with Radeon IGP 320M, including specs and performance data.

R7 250E
2013
1 GB GDDR5, 55 Watt
3.95
+39400%

R7 250E outperforms IGP 320M by a whopping 39400% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking7341582
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.08no data
Power efficiency5.56no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2012−2020)Rage 7 (2001−2006)
GPU code nameCape VerdeRS100
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 December 2013 (11 years ago)5 October 2002 (23 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

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 cores5122
Core clock speed800 MHz160 MHz
Boost clock speedno data160 MHz
Number of transistors1,500 million30 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm180 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Wattno data
Texture fill rate25.600.16
Floating-point processing power0.8192 TFLOPSno data
ROPs161
TMUs321
L1 Cache128 KBno data
L2 Cache256 KBno 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16AGP 4x
Length168 mmno data
Width1-slotno data
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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1125 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (11_1)7.0
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.61.4
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

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 0−1 0−1
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Dota 2 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hogwarts Legacy 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Valorant 21−24
+0%
21−24
+0%

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 0−1 0−1

1440p
Ultra

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

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Valorant 0−1 0−1

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
Epic

Fortnite 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 24 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.95 0.01
Recency 20 December 2013 5 October 2002
Chip lithography 28 nm 180 nm

R7 250E has a 39400% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R7 250E is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon IGP 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250E is a desktop graphics card while Radeon IGP 320M is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon R7 250E
Radeon R7 250E
ATI Radeon IGP 320M
Radeon IGP 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.


4 25 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250E on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 17 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon R7 250E or Radeon IGP 320M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.