GeForce 320M Mac Edition vs Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
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 date1 October 2017 (8 years ago)1 April 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 cores409648
Core clock speed1156 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed1247 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million486 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)250 Watt23 Watt
Texture fill rate319.27.200
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0912 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
Length152 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 speed1600 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortPortable Device Dependent
HDMI+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12.011.1 (10_1)
Shader Model5.04.1
OpenGL4.63.3
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 October 2017 1 April 2010
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 250 Watt 23 Watt

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

320M Mac Edition, on the other hand, has 987% lower power consumption.

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

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano is a desktop graphics card while GeForce 320M Mac Edition is a notebook one.

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 Nano
Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano
NVIDIA GeForce 320M Mac Edition
GeForce 320M Mac Edition

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.


4 5 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano 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

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Radeon RX Vega 64 Nano or GeForce 320M Mac Edition, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.