GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon R7 260

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 260 with GeForce GT 320M, including specs and performance data.

R7 260
2013
2 GB GDDR5, 115 Watt
7.50
+2678%

R7 260 outperforms GT 320M by a whopping 2678% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking5311347
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.67no data
Power efficiency5.411.32
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameBonaireG96C
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date17 December 2013 (11 years ago)15 June 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$109 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores76832
Core clock speedno data500 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate48.008.000
Floating-point processing power1.536 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs4816

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 x16MXM-II
Length170 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount2 GB512 MB
Memory bus width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1625 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth104 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-
DisplayPort support+-

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.01.1
Vulkan-N/A
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. 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.

R7 260 7.50
+2678%
GT 320M 0.27

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.

R7 260 2891
+2653%
GT 320M 105

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 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Hitman 3 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 27−30
+0%
27−30
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 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 29 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.50 0.27
Recency 17 December 2013 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 2 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 14 Watt

R7 260 has a 2677.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 721.4% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 260 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 260 is a desktop card while GeForce GT 320M is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

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 260
Radeon R7 260
NVIDIA GeForce GT 320M
GeForce GT 320M

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


3.5 50 votes

Rate Radeon R7 260 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 126 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.