GeForce GT 325M vs Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GT 325M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GT 325M by a whopping 1293% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 597 | 1258 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 27.72 | 1.30 |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Vega Renoir | GT216 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 7 January 2020 (5 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (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 cores | 384 | 48 |
| Core clock speed | 400 MHz | 450 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1500 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 486 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 23 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 7.200 |
| Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.09504 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 142 |
| ROPs | no data | 8 |
| TMUs | no data | 16 |
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 |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | + |
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 | no data | DDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 1066 (DDR3), Up to 800 (GDDR3) MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 22.4 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 | no data | Dual Link DVIDisplayPortHDMIVGASingle Link DVI |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 11.1 (10_1) |
| Shader Model | no data | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 21
+2000%
| 1−2
−2000%
|
| 1440p | 23
+2200%
| 1−2
−2200%
|
| 4K | 18
+1700%
| 1−2
−1700%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 19
+850%
|
2−3
−850%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 13
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 15
+650%
|
2−3
−650%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10
+900%
|
1−2
−900%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Fortnite | 33
+1550%
|
2−3
−1550%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| Valorant | 97
+259%
|
27−30
−259%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8
+14.3%
|
7−8
−14.3%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 56
+273%
|
14−16
−273%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Dota 2 | 42
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Fortnite | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Valorant | 73
+170%
|
27−30
−170%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 8
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
+300%
|
10−11
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21−24
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Valorant | 19
−42.1%
|
27−30
+42.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+1700%
|
2−3
−1700%
|
| Valorant | 49
+1533%
|
3−4
−1533%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+1200%
|
1−2
−1200%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+800%
|
1−2
−800%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 22
+633%
|
3−4
−633%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 6−7
+200%
|
2−3
−200%
|
This is how RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GT 325M compete in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 2000% faster in 1080p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 2200% faster in 1440p
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1700% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is 1700% faster.
- in Valorant, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 325M is 42% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is ahead in 32 tests (97%)
- GT 325M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.99 | 0.43 |
| Recency | 7 January 2020 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 7 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 23 Watt |
RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 1293% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 53.3% lower power consumption.
The Radeon RX Vega 6 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 325M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
