GeForce GT 320M
VS
Quadro FX 380M

GeForce GT 320M vs Quadro FX 380M

NVIDIA

GeForce GT 320M

2017Core: 1228 MHzBoost: 1468 MHz
VS
NVIDIA

Quadro FX 380M

2008Core: 610 MHz

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 320M is positioned at rank 163 and the Quadro FX 380M is on rank 161, so the Quadro FX 380M offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.

MSRP is the manufacturer's suggested retail price.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.

Performance Per Dollar GeForce GT 320M

#1
GeForce RTX 3060 Ti
MSRP: $399|Avg: $280
954%
#2
GeForce RTX 5060
MSRP: $299|Avg: $299
917%
#3
Radeon RX 5600 XT
MSRP: $279|Avg: $180
906%
#4
Radeon RX 9060
MSRP: $249|Avg: $249
905%
#5
GeForce RTX 5050
MSRP: $249|Avg: $249
903%
#6
GeForce RTX 3050 OEM
MSRP: $249|Avg: $150
898%
#7
Arc A580
MSRP: $179|Avg: $179
886%
#8
Radeon RX 9060 XT
MSRP: $299|Avg: $299
883%
#9
Radeon RX 9060 XT 8GB
MSRP: $299|Avg: $299
875%
#10
Radeon RX 7600
MSRP: $269|Avg: $250
873%
#11
Radeon RX 6600
MSRP: $329|Avg: $180
862%
#12
GeForce RTX 4060
MSRP: $299|Avg: $299
860%
#13
Arc B570
MSRP: $219|Avg: $219
845%
#14
Arc B580
MSRP: $249|Avg: $249
844%
#90
GeForce RTX 5090 D v2
MSRP: $1999|Avg: $4086.44
98%
#91
Radeon Ryzen 5 150
MSRP: $350|Avg: $350
98%
#92
Radeon Ryzen 7 4800H
MSRP: $450|Avg: $450
95%
#148
Radeon R5 430 OEM
MSRP: N/A|Avg: $13
1053%
#163
GeForce GT 320M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#164
99%
#165
Radeon HD 6520G
MSRP: $40|Avg: $5
99%
#166
Radeon HD 8470D
MSRP: $50|Avg: $10
98%
#167
GeForce GT 545
MSRP: $149|Avg: $20
98%
#170
GeForce GT 340
MSRP: $100|Avg: $20
97%
#171
GeForce GT 230
MSRP: $44|Avg: $44
97%
#172
Radeon HD 6670
MSRP: $99|Avg: $99
96%
#175
Radeon R5 420
MSRP: $80|Avg: $20
95%
#176
Radeon R7 A8-7670K
MSRP: $118|Avg: $50
94%
#177
Radeon HD 6570
MSRP: $79|Avg: $79
93%
#178
Radeon HD 8370D
MSRP: $45|Avg: $10
92%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar Quadro FX 380M

#74
RTX 5000 Ada Generation
MSRP: $4000|Avg: $4095
94%
#75
Radeon Pro Vega II
MSRP: $2199|Avg: $1800
88%
#76
Radeon PRO W7900
MSRP: $3999|Avg: $3500
87%
#77
Radeon Pro VII
MSRP: $1899|Avg: $1400
86%
#146
Tesla K20m
MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55
1831%
#161
Quadro FX 380M
MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A
100%
#166
FirePro W5100
MSRP: $399|Avg: $50
93%
#167
Radeon Pro WX 4170
MSRP: $400|Avg: $120
89%
#168
FirePro W4300
MSRP: $379|Avg: $50
89%
#169
Quadro K2200
MSRP: $500|Avg: $40
89%
#173
Radeon R7 PRO A8-9600
MSRP: $119|Avg: $86
87%
#175
Radeon Pro 560
MSRP: $500|Avg: $150
86%
#176
Radeon Pro 460
MSRP: $500|Avg: $150
86%
Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The GeForce GT 320M is significantly newer (2017 vs 2008). The GeForce GT 320M likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Quadro FX 380M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Quadro FX 380M is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 6.1% higher G3D Mark score. However, the GeForce GT 320M offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.

InsightGeForce GT 320MQuadro FX 380M
Performance
Lower raw frame rates (-6.1%)
Leading raw performance (+6.1%)
Longevity
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2017 / Pascal (2016−2021))
🛑Obsolete Architecture (2008 / Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013))
Ecosystem
Supports FSR Upscaling
Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM
✅ More VRAM (+100%)
❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency
💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
⚡ Higher Power Consumption
Case Fit

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Quadro FX 380M 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 GT 320M and Quadro FX 380M

NVIDIA

GeForce GT 320M

The GeForce GT 320M 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: 114 points. Launch price was $79.

NVIDIA

Quadro FX 380M

The Quadro FX 380M 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: 121 points. Launch price was $3,499.

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GT 320M scores 114 versus the Quadro FX 380M's 121 — the Quadro FX 380M leads by 6.1%. The GeForce GT 320M is built on Pascal while the Quadro FX 380M uses Tesla 2.0, both on 14 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 320M) vs 240 (Quadro FX 380M). Raw compute: 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 320M) vs 0.6221 TFLOPS (Quadro FX 380M).

FeatureGeForce GT 320MQuadro FX 380M
G3D Mark Score
114
121+6%
Architecture
Pascal
Tesla 2.0
Process Node
14 nm
55 nm
Shading Units
384+60%
240
Compute (TFLOPS)
1.127 TFLOPS+81%
0.6221 TFLOPS
ROPs
16
32+100%
TMUs
24
80+233%
L2 Cache
512 KB+100%
256 KB

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

FeatureGeForce GT 320MQuadro FX 380M
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 320M comes with 1 GB of VRAM, while the Quadro FX 380M has 512 MB. The GeForce GT 320M 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 320M) vs 256 KB (Quadro FX 380M) — the GeForce GT 320M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

FeatureGeForce GT 320MQuadro FX 380M
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: 11.1 (FL10_1) (GeForce GT 320M) vs 11.1 (FL10_1) (Quadro FX 380M). Vulkan: N/A vs N/A. OpenGL: 3.3 vs 3.3. Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

FeatureGeForce GT 320MQuadro FX 380M
DirectX
11.1 (FL10_1)
11.1 (FL10_1)
Vulkan
N/A
N/A
OpenGL
3.3
3.3
Max Displays
2
2
🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: VP4 (GeForce GT 320M) vs VP4 (Quadro FX 380M). Decoder: VP4 vs VP4. Supported codecs: H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (GeForce GT 320M) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4 (Quadro FX 380M).

FeatureGeForce GT 320MQuadro FX 380M
Encoder
VP4
VP4
Decoder
VP4
VP4
Codecs
H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4
H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2,MPEG-4
🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GT 320M draws 30W versus the Quadro FX 380M's 189W — a 145.2% difference. The GeForce GT 320M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 320M) vs 350W (Quadro FX 380M). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 0mm, occupying 0 vs 0 slots. Typical load temperature: 80°C vs 75°C.

FeatureGeForce GT 320MQuadro FX 380M
TDP
30W-84%
189W
Recommended PSU
350W
350W
Power Connector
PCIe-powered
PCIe-powered
Length
0mm
0mm
Height
0mm
0mm
Slots
0
0
Temp (Load)
80°C
75°C-6%
Perf/Watt
3.8+533%
0.6