GeForce GT 320 vs FirePro 3D V3800
GeForce GT 320
Popular choices:
FirePro 3D V3800
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 GT 320 is positioned at rank 201 and the FirePro 3D V3800 is on rank 238, 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 GT 320
Performance Per Dollar FirePro 3D V3800
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 | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-0.4%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+0.4%) |
| Longevity | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021)) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| 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 | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+151.1%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($30) | ✅More affordable ($12) |
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 GT 320 and FirePro 3D V3800
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.
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.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce GT 320 scores 470 and the FirePro 3D V3800 reaches 472 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 0.4% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce GT 320 is built on Pascal while the FirePro 3D V3800 uses TeraScale 2, both on 14 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 320) vs 800 (FirePro 3D V3800). Raw compute: 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 320) vs 1.104 TFLOPS (FirePro 3D V3800).
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 470 | 472 |
| Architecture | Pascal | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 800+108% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 1.127 TFLOPS+2% | 1.104 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 40+67% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB+80% | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 GT 320 comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the FirePro 3D V3800 has 512 MB. 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: 512 KB (GeForce GT 320) vs 256 KB (FirePro 3D V3800) — the GeForce GT 320 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 1 GB+100% | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 10.1 (GeForce GT 320) vs 11.2 (FirePro 3D V3800). Vulkan: N/A vs None. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 10.1 | 11.2+11% |
| Vulkan | N/A | None |
| OpenGL | 3.3 | 4.4+33% |
| Max Displays | 2 | 2 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce GT 320) vs UVD 2.3 (FirePro 3D V3800). Decoder: PureVideo HD (VP4) vs UVD 2.3. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (GeForce GT 320) vs MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 (FirePro 3D V3800).
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | UVD 2.3 |
| Decoder | PureVideo HD (VP4) | UVD 2.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 | MPEG-2,H.264,VC-1 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce GT 320 draws 30W versus the FirePro 3D V3800's 74W — a 84.6% difference. The GeForce GT 320 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 250W (GeForce GT 320) vs 350W (FirePro 3D V3800). Power connectors: None vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 175mm vs 168mm, occupying 1 vs 1 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 65°C.
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 30W-59% | 74W |
| Recommended PSU | 250W-29% | 350W |
| Power Connector | None | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 175mm | 168mm |
| Height | 111mm | 64mm |
| Slots | 1 | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | 75 | 65°C-13% |
| Perf/Watt | 15.7+145% | 6.4 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce GT 320 launched at $79 MSRP and currently averages $30, while the FirePro 3D V3800 launched at $129 and now averages $12. The FirePro 3D V3800 costs 60% less ($18 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 15.7 (GeForce GT 320) vs 39.3 (FirePro 3D V3800) — the FirePro 3D V3800 offers 150.3% better value. The GeForce GT 320 is the newer GPU (2017 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce GT 320 | FirePro 3D V3800 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $79-39% | $129 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $30 | $12-60% |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.7 | 39.3+150% |
| Codename | GP108 | Juniper |
| Release | May 17 2017 | April 26 2010 |
| Ranking | #641 | #780 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce GT 320 and FirePro 3D V3800
