GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon RX 6700 XT

Place in the ranking	50	1346
Place by popularity	78	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	57.42	no data
Power efficiency	15.37	1.32
Architecture	RDNA 2.0 (2020−2024)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Navi 22	G96C
Market segment	Desktop	Laptop
Release date	3 March 2021 (3 years ago)	15 June 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	$479	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 cores	2560	32
Core clock speed	2321 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	2581 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	17,200 million	314 million
Manufacturing process technology	7 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	230 Watt	14 Watt
Texture fill rate	413.0	8.000
Floating-point processing power	13.21 TFLOPS	0.08 TFLOPS
ROPs	64	8
TMUs	160	16
Ray Tracing Cores	40	no 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).

Laptop size	no data	medium sized
Interface	PCIe 4.0 x16	MXM-II
Length	267 mm	no data
Width	2-slot	no data
Supplementary power connectors	1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin	None

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 type	GDDR6	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	512 MB
Memory bus width	192 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	2000 MHz	800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	384.0 GB/s	25.6 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 Connectors	1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort	No outputs
HDMI	+	-

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 Ultimate (12_2)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.5	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	2.1	1.1
Vulkan	1.2	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.

RX 6700 XT 51.55
+18993%

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.

RX 6700 XT 19864
+18818%

GT 320M 105

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

RX 6700 XT 109039
+8949%

GT 320M 1205

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 HD	158	0−1
1440p	86	-0−1
4K	51	-0−1

Cost per frame, $

1080p	3.03	no data
1440p	5.57	no data
4K	9.39	no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

119
+5850%

2−3

−5850%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	100−110 +3500%	3−4 −3500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	169	0−1
Battlefield 5	160−170	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−105 +4900%	2−3 −4900%
Cyberpunk 2077	99 +4850%	2−3 −4850%
Far Cry 5	100−110	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	120−130	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	210−220 +21400%	1−2 −21400%
Hitman 3	138 +3350%	4−5 −3350%
Horizon Zero Dawn	200−210 +2413%	8−9 −2413%
Metro Exodus	140−150	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	100−110	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	200−210 +4925%	4−5 −4925%
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +411%	27−30 −411%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	100−110 +3500%	3−4 −3500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	144	0−1
Battlefield 5	160−170	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−105 +4900%	2−3 −4900%
Cyberpunk 2077	90 +4400%	2−3 −4400%
Far Cry 5	100−110	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	120−130	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	210−220 +21400%	1−2 −21400%
Hitman 3	136 +3300%	4−5 −3300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	200−210 +2413%	8−9 −2413%
Metro Exodus	140−150	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	100−110	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	281 +6925%	4−5 −6925%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	100−110 +1089%	9−10 −1089%
Watch Dogs: Legion	140−150 +411%	27−30 −411%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	100−110 +3500%	3−4 −3500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	125	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	100−105 +4900%	2−3 −4900%
Cyberpunk 2077	85 +4150%	2−3 −4150%
Far Cry 5	100−110	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	210−220 +21400%	1−2 −21400%
Hitman 3	135 +3275%	4−5 −3275%
Horizon Zero Dawn	193 +2313%	8−9 −2313%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	240 +5900%	4−5 −5900%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	127 +1311%	9−10 −1311%
Watch Dogs: Legion	84 +200%	27−30 −200%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

100−110

0−1

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	100−110	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	80−85	0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	55−60	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	109	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	60−65	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	56	0−1
Far Cry 5	60−65	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	260−270 +26000%	1−2 −26000%
Hitman 3	83 +1283%	6−7 −1283%
Horizon Zero Dawn	145 +7150%	2−3 −7150%
Metro Exodus	123	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	173	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	80−85	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	220−230 +21900%	1−2 −21900%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

85−90
+4350%

2−3

−4350%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	55−60	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	45−50	0−1
Hitman 3	48	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	210−220 +20900%	1−2 −20900%
Metro Exodus	70−75	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	74	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	35−40 +3700%	1−2 −3700%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	48	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	35−40	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	25	0−1
Far Cry 5	30−35	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	75−80	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	93	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	35	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

45−50
+2350%

2−3

−2350%

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

in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the RX 6700 XT is 7150% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

Without exception, RX 6700 XT surpassed GT 320M in all 29 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	51.55	0.27
Recency	3 March 2021	15 June 2009
Maximum RAM amount	12 GB	512 MB
Chip lithography	7 nm	55 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	230 Watt	14 Watt

RX 6700 XT has a 18992.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, a 2300% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.

GT 320M, on the other hand, has 1542.9% lower power consumption.

The Radeon RX 6700 XT is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 320M in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 6700 XT 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.