GeForce 320M vs Radeon HD 8250
GeForce 320M
Popular choices:
Radeon HD 8250
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 Radeon HD 8250 is on rank 250, 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 Radeon HD 8250
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The Radeon HD 8250 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 1% 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 | Radeon HD 8250 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-1%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+1%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2015 / Maxwell (2014−2017)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2012 / GCN 1.0 (2012−2020)) |
| 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 Radeon HD 8250 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 Radeon HD 8250
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.
Radeon HD 8250
The Radeon HD 8250 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in March 5 2012. It features the GCN 1.0 architecture. The boost clock speed is 1000 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 130W. Manufactured using 28 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 212 points. Launch price was $249.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce 320M scores 210 and the Radeon HD 8250 reaches 212 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 1% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 320M is built on Maxwell while the Radeon HD 8250 uses GCN 1.0, both on a 28 nm process. Shader units: 384 (GeForce 320M) vs 1,024 (Radeon HD 8250). Raw compute: 0.4216 TFLOPS (GeForce 320M) vs 1.761 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 8250). Boost clocks: 549 MHz vs 1000 MHz.
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Radeon HD 8250 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 210 | 212 |
| Architecture | Maxwell | GCN 1.0 |
| Process Node | 28 nm | 28 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 1024+167% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.4216 TFLOPS | 1.761 TFLOPS+318% |
| Boost Clock | 549 MHz | 1000 MHz+82% |
| ROPs | 8 | 32+300% |
| TMUs | 24 | 64+167% |
| L1 Cache | 192 KB | 256 KB+33% |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Radeon HD 8250 |
|---|---|---|
| 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)
The GeForce 320M comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 8250 has 512 MB. The Radeon HD 8250 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 128-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 1 MB (GeForce 320M) vs 0.5 MB (Radeon HD 8250) — the GeForce 320M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Radeon HD 8250 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 128-bit | 128-bit |
| L2 Cache | 1 MB+100% | 0.5 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 320M draws 33W versus the Radeon HD 8250's 130W — a 119% difference. The GeForce 320M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 320M) vs 350W (Radeon HD 8250). Power connectors: Legacy vs 1x 6-pin.
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Radeon HD 8250 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 33W-75% | 130W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | 1x 6-pin |
| Height | 0mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 80°C | — |
| Perf/Watt | 6.4+300% | 1.6 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 320M is the newer GPU (2015 vs 2012).
| Feature | GeForce 320M | Radeon HD 8250 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | — | $50 |
| Avg Price (30d) | — | $50 |
| Codename | GM108 | Pitcairn |
| Release | March 13 2015 | March 5 2012 |
| Ranking | #880 | #503 |
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 Radeon HD 8250
