NVIDIA GeForce 820M vs NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM
Comparative analysis of NVIDIA GeForce 820M and NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM videocards for all known characteristics in the following categories: Essentials, Technical info, Video outputs and ports, Compatibility, dimensions and requirements, API support, Memory, Technologies. Benchmark videocards performance analysis: PassMark - G3D Mark, PassMark - G2D Mark, Geekbench - OpenCL, CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s), CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames), GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps), GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps), 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score.
Differences
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce 820M
- Videocard is newer: launch date 5 year(s) 1 month(s) later
- Around 50% higher core clock speed: 810 MHz vs 540 MHz
- Around 33% higher pipelines: 96 vs 72
- Around 28% better floating-point performance: 240.0 gflops vs 187.49 gflops
- A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running videocard: 28 nm vs 40 nm
- Around 14% higher memory clock speed: 1802 MHz vs 1580 MHz
- Around 7% better performance in PassMark - G3D Mark: 495 vs 461
- Around 82% better performance in PassMark - G2D Mark: 113 vs 62
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames): 3349 vs 2502
- Around 34% better performance in GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps): 3349 vs 2502
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Launch date | 21 March 2015 vs 2 February 2010 |
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz vs 540 MHz |
| Pipelines | 96 vs 72 |
| Floating-point performance | 240.0 gflops vs 187.49 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm vs 40 nm |
| Memory clock speed | 1802 MHz vs 1580 MHz |
| Benchmarks | |
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 495 vs 461 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 113 vs 62 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 vs 2502 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 vs 2502 |
Reasons to consider the NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM
- Around 30% higher texture fill rate: 12.96 GTexel / s vs 10 GTexel / s
- Around 5% lower typical power consumption: 43 Watt vs 45 Watt
- 2.9x better performance in Geekbench - OpenCL: 8132 vs 2782
| Specifications (specs) | |
| Texture fill rate | 12.96 GTexel / s vs 10 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 43 Watt vs 45 Watt |
| Benchmarks | |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 8132 vs 2782 |
Compare benchmarks
GPU 1: NVIDIA GeForce 820M
GPU 2: NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM
| PassMark - G3D Mark |
|
|
||||
| PassMark - G2D Mark |
|
|
||||
| Geekbench - OpenCL |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) |
|
|
||||
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) |
|
|
| Name | NVIDIA GeForce 820M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM |
|---|---|---|
| PassMark - G3D Mark | 495 | 461 |
| PassMark - G2D Mark | 113 | 62 |
| Geekbench - OpenCL | 2782 | 8132 |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Face Detection (mPixels/s) | 7.765 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Ocean Surface Simulation (Frames/s) | 161.305 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - T-Rex (Frames/s) | 0.686 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Video Composition (Frames/s) | 14.257 | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Desktop - Bitcoin Mining (mHash/s) | 22.768 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Frames) | 1195 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Frames) | 1447 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Frames) | 3349 | 2502 |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Car Chase Offscreen (Fps) | 1195 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - Manhattan (Fps) | 1447 | |
| GFXBench 4.0 - T-Rex (Fps) | 3349 | 2502 |
| 3DMark Fire Strike - Graphics Score | 847 |
Compare specifications (specs)
| NVIDIA GeForce 820M | NVIDIA GeForce GT 320 OEM | |
|---|---|---|
Essentials |
||
| Architecture | Kepler | Tesla 2.0 |
| Code name | GK107 | GT215 |
| Launch date | 21 March 2015 | 2 February 2010 |
| Place in performance rating | 1477 | 1479 |
| Type | Laptop | Desktop |
Technical info |
||
| Core clock speed | 810 MHz | 540 MHz |
| Floating-point performance | 240.0 gflops | 187.49 gflops |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 40 nm |
| Pipelines | 96 | 72 |
| Texture fill rate | 10 GTexel / s | 12.96 GTexel / s |
| Thermal Design Power (TDP) | 45 Watt | 43 Watt |
| Transistor count | 1,270 million | 727 million |
Video outputs and ports |
||
| Display Connectors | No outputs | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA |
Compatibility, dimensions and requirements |
||
| Bus support | PCI Express 2.0 | |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 175 mm | |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | |
API support |
||
| DirectX | 12.0 (11_0) | 10.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.5 | 3.3 |
Memory |
||
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 GB / s | 25.28 GB / s |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1802 MHz | 1580 MHz |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Shared memory | 0 | |
Technologies |
||
| CUDA | ||
| GameWorks | ||
| GPU Boost | ||
| Optimus | ||
| Verde Drivers | ||
Navigation
Choose a GPU
Compare videocards
Compare NVIDIA GeForce 820M with others
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAQuadro FX 380M
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAGeForce GT 320 OEM
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAQuadro K420
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
AMDRadeon R6 M335DX
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
NVIDIAGRID M40
NVIDIAGeForce 820M vs
AMDRadeon R7 Graphics
