GeForce 256 vs Radeon IGP 320M
GeForce 256
Popular choices:
Radeon IGP 320M
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 GeForce 256 is positioned at rank 750 and the Radeon IGP 320M is on rank 412, so the Radeon IGP 320M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 256
Performance Per Dollar Radeon IGP 320M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 256 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon IGP 320M.
| Insight | GeForce 256 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce 256 remains the clear technical winner. Check real-time availability to determine if the performance gap justifies the market price.
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 GeForce 256 and Radeon IGP 320M
GeForce 256
The GeForce 256 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.
Radeon IGP 320M
The Radeon IGP 320M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 13 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1250 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 85W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the GeForce 256 scores 5 versus the Radeon IGP 320M's 4 — the GeForce 256 leads by 25%. The GeForce 256 is built on Pascal while the Radeon IGP 320M uses RDNA 1.0, both on 14 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 256) vs 1,280 (Radeon IGP 320M). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256) vs 3.2 TFLOPS (Radeon IGP 320M). Boost clocks: 1038 MHz vs 1250 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 5+25% | 4 |
| Architecture | Pascal | RDNA 1.0 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 1280+233% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 3.2 TFLOPS+301% |
| Boost Clock | 1038 MHz | 1250 MHz+20% |
| ROPs | 16 | 32+100% |
| TMUs | 24 | 80+233% |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 256 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 0.5 MB (GeForce 256) vs 2 MB (Radeon IGP 320M) — the Radeon IGP 320M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 0.5 MB | 2 MB+300% |
Display & API Support
Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce 256) vs None (Radeon IGP 320M). Decoder: MPEG-2 Motion Comp vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (GeForce 256) vs MPEG-2 (Radeon IGP 320M).
| Feature | GeForce 256 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | MPEG-2 Motion Comp | None |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 256 draws 10W versus the Radeon IGP 320M's 85W — a 157.9% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 256) vs 350W (Radeon IGP 320M). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce 256 | Radeon IGP 320M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-88% | 85W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 165mm | — |
| Height | 100mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | 0-100% |
| Temp (Load) | 60°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.5 | 0.0 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 256 and Radeon IGP 320M
