FirePro 3D V3800 vs GeForce GT 320
FirePro 3D V3800
Popular choices:
GeForce GT 320
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The FirePro 3D V3800 is positioned at rank 238 and the GeForce GT 320 is on rank 201, so the GeForce GT 320 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar FirePro 3D V3800
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 320
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GT 320 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2010). The GeForce GT 320 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro 3D V3800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro 3D V3800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 0.4% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GT 320 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro 3D V3800 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the FirePro 3D V3800 holds the technical lead. Priced at $12 (vs $30), it costs 60% less, resulting in a 151.1% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+151.1%) | ❌Lower cost efficiency |
| Upfront Cost | ✅More affordable ($12) | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of FirePro 3D V3800 and GeForce GT 320
FirePro 3D V3800
The FirePro 3D V3800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 26 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 690 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 74W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 472 points. Launch price was $479.
GeForce GT 320
The GeForce GT 320 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in May 17 2017. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 1228 MHz to 1468 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 30W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 470 points. Launch price was $79.
Graphics Performance
The FirePro 3D V3800 scores 472 and the GeForce GT 320 reaches 470 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The FirePro 3D V3800 is built on TeraScale 2 while the GeForce GT 320 uses Pascal, both on 40 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 800 (FirePro 3D V3800) vs 384 (GeForce GT 320). Raw compute: 1.104 TFLOPS (FirePro 3D V3800) vs 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 320).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 472 | 470 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 800+108% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.104 TFLOPS | 1.127 TFLOPS+2% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 40+67% | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 80 KB | 144 KB+80% |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The FirePro 3D V3800 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the GeForce GT 320 has 1 GB. The GeForce GT 320 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 256 KB (FirePro 3D V3800) vs 512 KB (GeForce GT 320) — the GeForce GT 320 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 1 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | 512 KB+100% |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 11.2 (FirePro 3D V3800) vs 10.1 (GeForce GT 320). Vulkan: None vs N/A. OpenGL: 4.4 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 11.2+11% | 10.1 |
| Vulkan | None | N/A |
| OpenGL | 4.4+33% | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: UVD 2.3 (FirePro 3D V3800) vs None (GeForce GT 320). Decoder: UVD 2.3 vs PureVideo HD (VP4). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (FirePro 3D V3800) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 320).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | UVD 2.3 | None |
| Decoder | UVD 2.3 | PureVideo HD (VP4) |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The FirePro 3D V3800 draws 74W versus the GeForce GT 320's 30W — a 84.6% difference. The GeForce GT 320 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (FirePro 3D V3800) vs 250W (GeForce GT 320). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 168mm vs 175mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 65°C vs 75.
| Feature | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 74W | 30W-59% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 250W-29% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 168mm | 175mm |
| Height | 64mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 65°C-13% | 75 |
| Perf/Watt | 6.4 | 15.7+145% |
Value Analysis
The FirePro 3D V3800 launched at $129 MSRP and currently averages $12, while the GeForce GT 320 launched at $79 and now averages $30. The FirePro 3D V3800 costs 60% less ($18 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 39.3 (FirePro 3D V3800) vs 15.7 (GeForce GT 320) — the FirePro 3D V3800 offers 150.3% better value. The GeForce GT 320 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2010).
| Feature | FirePro 3D V3800 | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $129 | $79-39% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $12-60% | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 39.3+150% | 15.7 |
| Codename | Juniper | GP108 |
| Release | April 26 2010 | May 17 2017 |
| Ranking | #780 | #641 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on FirePro 3D V3800 and GeForce GT 320
