GeForce GT 320 OEM vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking481not rated
Place by popularity29not in top-100
Power efficiency42.00no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code nameVegaGT215
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date7 January 2020 (4 years ago)2 February 2010 (14 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 cores51272
Core clock speedno data540 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data727 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt43 Watt
Texture fill rateno data12.96
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1875 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data24

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 2.0 x16
Lengthno data175 mm
Widthno data1-slot
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 typeno dataGDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data790 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data25.28 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 data1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12_111.1 (10_1)
Shader Modelno data4.1
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-1.2

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 January 2020 2 February 2010
Chip lithography 7 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 43 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has an age advantage of 9 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 186.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GeForce GT 320 OEM. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is a notebook card while GeForce GT 320 OEM is a desktop 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 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM
GeForce GT 320 OEM

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.


3.8 1126 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 61 vote

Rate GeForce GT 320 OEM 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.