GeForce 320M Mac Edition vs Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameVega 10C89
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date7 August 2017 (7 years ago)1 April 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$699 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 cores409648
Core clock speed1408 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1668 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)345 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate427.07.200
Floating-point processing power13.66 TFLOPS0.0912 TFLOPS
ROPs648
TMUs25616

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 2.0 x16
Length282 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinno data

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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width2048 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed945 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth483.8 GB/sno data
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 HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model6.44.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.1.125N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 August 2017 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 345 Watt 23 Watt

RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 185.7% more advanced lithography process.

320M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 1400% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling and GeForce 320M Mac Edition. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling is a desktop card while GeForce 320M Mac Edition 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 RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling
Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling
NVIDIA GeForce 320M Mac Edition
GeForce 320M Mac Edition

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.


4.6 24 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Liquid Cooling on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.9 7 votes

Rate GeForce 320M Mac Edition 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.