GeForce 9800M GTX vs GeForce GT 320
GeForce 9800M GTX
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 GeForce 9800M GTX is positioned at rank 671 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 GeForce 9800M GTX
Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 320
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce GT 320 is significantly newer (2017 vs 2008). 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 GeForce 9800M GTX lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce GT 320 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 3.5% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce 9800M GTX.
| Insight | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-3.5%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+3.5%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / G9x (2007−2010)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
The GeForce GT 320 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. While both GPUs are considered legacy components by modern standards, the GeForce GT 320 holds the technical lead. Priced at $30 (vs $30), it costs 0% less, resulting in a 3.5% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+3.5%) |
| Upfront Cost | Equivalent pricing | Equivalent pricing |
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 9800M GTX and GeForce GT 320
GeForce 9800M GTX
The GeForce 9800M GTX is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in July 15 2008. It features the G9x architecture. The core clock speed is 500 MHz. It has 224 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 150W. Manufactured using 65 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 454 points.
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 GeForce 9800M GTX scores 454 and the GeForce GT 320 reaches 470 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 3.5% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce 9800M GTX is built on G9x while the GeForce GT 320 uses Pascal, both on 65 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 224 (GeForce 9800M GTX) vs 384 (GeForce GT 320).
| Feature | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 454 | 470+4% |
| Architecture | G9x | Pascal |
| Process Node | 65 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 224 | 384+71% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 2.1 (Compatible) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | FSR 3 (Compatible) | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 1 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit.
| Feature | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Memory Bandwidth | Unknown | Unknown |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.0 (GeForce 9800M GTX) vs 10.1 (GeForce GT 320). Vulkan: None vs N/A. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 1 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.0 | 10.1 |
| Vulkan | None | N/A |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 3.3 |
| Max Displays | 1 | 2+100% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: No (GeForce 9800M GTX) vs None (GeForce GT 320). Decoder: PureVideo HD VP3 vs PureVideo HD (VP4). Supported codecs: MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (GeForce 9800M GTX) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 320).
| Feature | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | No | None |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD VP3 | PureVideo HD (VP4) |
| Codecs | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce 9800M GTX draws 150W versus the GeForce GT 320's 30W — a 133.3% difference. The GeForce GT 320 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce 9800M GTX) vs 250W (GeForce GT 320). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs None. Card length: 0mm vs 175mm, occupying 0 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 90°C vs 75.
| Feature | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 150W | 30W-80% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 250W-29% |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | None |
| Length | 0mm | 175mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 90°C | 75-17% |
| Perf/Watt | 3.0 | 15.7+423% |
Value Analysis
The GeForce 9800M GTX launched at $300 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the GeForce GT 320 launched at $79 and now averages $30. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 15.1 (GeForce 9800M GTX) vs 15.7 (GeForce GT 320) — the GeForce GT 320 offers 4% better value. The GeForce GT 320 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2008).
| Feature | GeForce 9800M GTX | GeForce GT 320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $300 | $79-74% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | $30 |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.1 | 15.7+4% |
| Codename | NB9E-GTX | GP108 |
| Release | July 15 2008 | May 17 2017 |
| Ranking | #825 | #641 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce 9800M GTX and GeForce GT 320
