GeForce 320M vs Quadro FX 2500M
GeForce 320M
Popular choices:
Quadro FX 2500M
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 320M is positioned at rank 101 and the Quadro FX 2500M is on rank 282, so the GeForce 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 320M
Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 2500M
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce 320M is significantly newer (2015 vs 2008). The GeForce 320M likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 2500M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Quadro FX 2500M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.8% higher G3D Mark score and 100% more VRAM (512 MB vs 256 MB). This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 320M.
| Insight | GeForce 320M | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.8%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.8%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro FX 2500M 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 320M and Quadro FX 2500M
GeForce 320M
The GeForce 320M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in March 13 2015. It features the Maxwell architecture. The core clock ranges from 549 MHz to 549 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 33W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 210 points.
Quadro FX 2500M
The Quadro FX 2500M is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in November 11 2008. It features the Tesla 2.0 architecture. The core clock speed is 610 MHz. It has 240 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 189W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 218 points. Launch price was $3,499.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 320M scores 210 and the Quadro FX 2500M reaches 218 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.8% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 320M is built on Maxwell while the Quadro FX 2500M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 28 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 320M) vs 240 (Quadro FX 2500M). Raw compute: 0.4216 TFLOPS (GeForce 320M) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 2500M).
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 210 | 218+4% |
| Architecture | Maxwell | Tesla 2.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Shading Units | 384+60% | 240 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4216 TFLOPS | 0.6221 TFLOPS+48% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 80+233% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GeForce 320M comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 2500M has 512 MB. The Quadro FX 2500M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 320M) vs 0.25 MB (Quadro FX 2500M) — the GeForce 320M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 128-bit+100% | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 320M draws 33W versus the Quadro FX 2500M's 189W — a 140.5% difference. The GeForce 320M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 320M) vs 350W (Quadro FX 2500M). Power connectors: Legacy vs PCIe-powered.
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Quadro FX 2500M |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-83% | 189W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | PCIe-powered |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 6.4+433% | 1.2 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 320M and Quadro FX 2500M
