GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon R7 265

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking436not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.05no data
Power efficiency4.79no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code namePitcairnG96C
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)15 June 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 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 cores102432
Core clock speedno data500 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,800 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt14 Watt
Texture fill rate59.208.000
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs328
TMUs6416

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
Length210 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 amount4 GB512 MB
Memory bus width256 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
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 Model5.14.0
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-1.1

Pros & cons summary


Recency 13 February 2014 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 14 Watt

R7 265 has an age advantage of 4 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 971.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 265 and GeForce GT 320M. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 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 265
Radeon R7 265
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.


3.1 373 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 121 vote

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.