GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon HD 2400

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.

GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon HD 2400 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with Ryzen 7 9800X3D to isolate GPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon HD 2400: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each GPU makes more sense in practice: raw FPS, VRAM, features, power draw, pricing, and long-term headroom.

GeForce GT 320M

2017

Why buy it

✅1.4% more average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
✅100% more VRAM for high-resolution textures and newer games (1 GB vs 512 MB).
✅Draws 30W instead of 190W, a 160W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌2017 hardware with 1 GB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌Lower G3D Mark per dollar, at 0 vs 1.5 G3D/$ (Unknown MSRP vs $79 MSRP).

Radeon HD 2400

2009

Why buy it

✅Delivers 100+% more G3D Mark for each dollar spent, at 1.5 vs 0 G3D/$ ($79 MSRP vs Unknown MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower average FPS than GeForce GT 320M across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data.
❌Less VRAM, with 512 MB vs 1 GB for high-resolution textures and newer games.
❌2009 hardware with 512 MB of VRAM is already well past its comfortable zone for modern gaming, so it is hard to recommend now.
❌533.3% higher power demand at 190W vs 30W.

Quick Answers

Which GPU is faster for gaming right now?

GeForce GT 320M is the faster gaming card right now. In our data, it leads by 1.4% in average FPS across 50 tracked games in our benchmark data. PassMark G3D leans toward Radeon HD 2400 instead at 121 vs 114, so for this question the real-game FPS result matters more than the synthetic split.

Which GPU is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond?

GeForce GT 320M is the safer long-term pick for 2026 and beyond. The case is simple: 1 GB vs 512 MB of VRAM, a 14nm process instead of 55nm, and a newer 2017 generation instead of 2009. That gives it more room for heavier textures and higher settings over time.

Which GPU is the better buy today?

Radeon HD 2400 makes the most sense today based on the pricing and value data we have for this matchup. If you are mainly targeting 1080p and some 1440p, Radeon HD 2400 is the easier value choice. If you care more about 1080p and some 1440p headroom, GeForce GT 320M has the stronger long-term case.

GeForce GT 320M vs Radeon HD 2400 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

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.

Radeon HD 2400

The Radeon HD 2400 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 2 2009. It features the TeraScale architecture. The core clock speed is 850 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 190W. Manufactured using 55 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 121 points. Launch price was $249.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the GeForce GT 320M scores 114 versus the Radeon HD 2400's 121 — the Radeon HD 2400 leads by 6.1%. The GeForce GT 320M is built on Pascal while the Radeon HD 2400 uses TeraScale, both on 14 nm vs 55 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce GT 320M) vs 800 (Radeon HD 2400). Raw compute: 1.127 TFLOPS (GeForce GT 320M) vs 1.36 TFLOPS (Radeon HD 2400).

Feature	GeForce GT 320M	Radeon HD 2400
G3D Mark Score	114	121+6%
Architecture	Pascal	TeraScale
Process Node	14 nm	55 nm
Shading Units	384	800+108%
Compute (TFLOPS)	1.127 TFLOPS	1.36 TFLOPS+21%
ROPs	16	16
TMUs	24	40+67%
L1 Cache	144 KB	160 KB+11%
L2 Cache	512 KB+100%	256 KB

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

The GeForce GT 320M gets NVIDIA DLSS, which still tends to look cleaner in motion. The Radeon HD 2400 leans on FSR, which is flexible and widely supported, but usually a bit rougher at the same settings.

Feature	GeForce GT 320M	Radeon HD 2400
Upscaling Tech	Upscaling support	FSR Upscaling / FSR 4
Frame Generation	Not Supported	Not Supported
Ray Reconstruction	No	No
Low Latency	NVIDIA Reflex	AMD Anti-Lag

💾

Video Memory (VRAM)

The GeForce GT 320M has 1 GB of VRAM, while the Radeon HD 2400 carries 512 MB. GeForce GT 320M gives you 100% more memory capacity, which matters more once you move into heavier textures, mods, or higher resolutions. Memory bus width is 64-bit on the GeForce GT 320M and 64-bit on the Radeon HD 2400. L2 Cache: 512 KB (GeForce GT 320M) vs 256 KB (Radeon HD 2400) — the GeForce GT 320M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	GeForce GT 320M	Radeon HD 2400
VRAM Capacity	1 GB+100%	0.5 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Memory Bandwidth	Unknown	Unknown
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	512 KB+100%	256 KB

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The GeForce GT 320M draws 30W versus the Radeon HD 2400's 190W — a 145.5% difference. The GeForce GT 320M is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce GT 320M) vs 350W (Radeon HD 2400). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs 1x 6-pin.

Feature	GeForce GT 320M	Radeon HD 2400
TDP	30W-84%	190W
Recommended PSU	350W	350W
Power Connector	PCIe-powered	1x 6-pin
Length	0mm	—
Height	0mm	—
Slots	0	—
Temp (Load)	80°C	—
Perf/Watt	3.8+533%	0.6

💰

Value Analysis

The newer card here is GeForce GT 320M (2017 vs 2009).

Feature	GeForce GT 320M	Radeon HD 2400
MSRP	—	$79
Codename	GP108	RV790
Release	May 17 2017	April 2 2009
Ranking	#641	#762

Search GeForce GT 320M on Amazon

Search Radeon HD 2400 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.