GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon R9 M385

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R9 M385 and GeForce GT 320M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R9 M385
2015
4 GB GDDR5
5.36
+1885%

R9 M385 outperforms GT 320M by a whopping 1885% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6171349
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data1.33
ArchitectureGCN 2.0 (2013−2017)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameStratoG96C
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 cores89632
Core clock speed900 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,080 million314 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data14 Watt
Texture fill rate56.008.000
Floating-point processing power1.792 TFLOPS0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs168
TMUs5616

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 sizemedium sizedmedium sized
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-II
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 width128 Bit128 Bit
Memory clock speed1500 MHz800 MHz
Memory bandwidth76.8 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
Eyefinity+-

Supported technologies

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

FreeSync+-
HD3D+-
PowerTune+-
DualGraphics+-
TrueAudio+-
ZeroCore+-
Switchable graphics+-

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1211.1 (10_0)
Shader Model6.34.0
OpenGL4.43.3
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. 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.

R9 M385 5.36
+1885%
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.

R9 M385 2060
+1862%
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

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Elden Ring 12−14 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
Valorant 14−16 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Elden Ring 12−14 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Fortnite 30−35
+3000%
1−2
−3000%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
Grand Theft Auto V 18−20 0−1
Metro Exodus 12−14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+650%
6−7
−650%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+300%
4−5
−300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+325%
4−5
−325%
Valorant 14−16 0−1
World of Tanks 85−90
+625%
12−14
−625%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+62.5%
8−9
−62.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12
+450%
2−3
−450%
Dota 2 18−20 0−1
Far Cry 5 24−27
+333%
6−7
−333%
Forza Horizon 4 21−24
+340%
5−6
−340%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 45−50
+650%
6−7
−650%
Valorant 14−16 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 4−5 0−1
Elden Ring 6−7 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 5−6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35
+3300%
1−2
−3300%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5 0−1
World of Tanks 35−40
+3800%
1−2
−3800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Far Cry 5 10−12
+175%
4−5
−175%
Forza Horizon 4 8−9 0−1
Metro Exodus 5−6 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7
+200%
2−3
−200%
Valorant 14−16
+250%
4−5
−250%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Elden Ring 3−4 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+6.7%
14−16
−6.7%
Metro Exodus 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16
+1400%
1−2
−1400%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%
Dota 2 16−18
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Far Cry 5 6−7 0−1
Fortnite 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Valorant 5−6 0−1

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

  • in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the R9 M385 is 3300% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • R9 M385 is ahead in 30 tests (97%)
  • there's a draw in 1 test (3%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.36 0.27
Recency 5 May 2015 15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 512 MB
Chip lithography 28 nm 55 nm

R9 M385 has a 1885.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 700% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 96.4% more advanced lithography process.

The Radeon R9 M385 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.


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 R9 M385
Radeon R9 M385
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.


5 1 vote

Rate Radeon R9 M385 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 130 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.