RADEON 9200 SE vs RADEON IGP 320
RADEON 9200 SE
Popular choices:
RADEON IGP 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 RADEON 9200 SE is positioned at rank 742 and the RADEON IGP 320 is on rank 424, so the RADEON IGP 320 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9200 SE
Performance Per Dollar RADEON IGP 320
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON IGP 320 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 33.3% 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 RADEON 9200 SE.
| Insight | RADEON 9200 SE | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (7nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+100%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly | — |
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 RADEON 9200 SE and RADEON IGP 320
RADEON 9200 SE
The RADEON 9200 SE is manufactured by AMD. It was released in January 6 2025. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1295 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 2560 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 55W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 40 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 3 points.
RADEON IGP 320
The RADEON IGP 320 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 4 2021. It features the RDNA 2.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1825 MHz to 2200 MHz. It has 4608 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 300W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. It features 72 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON 9200 SE scores 3 versus the RADEON IGP 320's 4 — the RADEON IGP 320 leads by 33.3%. The RADEON 9200 SE is built on RDNA 3.5 while the RADEON IGP 320 uses RDNA 2.0, both on 4 nm vs 7 nm. Shader units: 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 4,608 (RADEON IGP 320). Raw compute: 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 20.28 TFLOPS (RADEON IGP 320). Boost clocks: 2900 MHz vs 2200 MHz. Ray tracing: 40 RT cores (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 72 (RADEON IGP 320).
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 3 | 4+33% |
| Architecture | RDNA 3.5 | RDNA 2.0 |
| Process Node | 4 nm | 7 nm |
| Shading Units | 2560 | 4608+80% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 14.85 TFLOPS | 20.28 TFLOPS+37% |
| Boost Clock | 2900 MHz+32% | 2200 MHz |
| ROPs | 64 | 128+100% |
| TMUs | 160 | 288+80% |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+100% | 4 MB |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 40 | 72+80% |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | AMD Anti-Lag | AMD Anti-Lag |
Video Memory (VRAM)
The RADEON 9200 SE comes with 256 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON IGP 320 has 512 MB. The RADEON IGP 320 offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 8 MB (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 4 MB (RADEON IGP 320) — the RADEON 9200 SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.25 GB | 0.5 GB+100% |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 8 MB+100% | 4 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON 9200 SE draws 55W versus the RADEON IGP 320's 300W — a 138% difference. The RADEON 9200 SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 350W (RADEON IGP 320). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy.
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 55W-82% | 300W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Length | 168mm | — |
| Height | 111mm | — |
| Slots | 1 | — |
| Temp (Load) | 60 | — |
| Perf/Watt | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON 9200 SE launched at $30 MSRP and currently averages $15, while the RADEON IGP 320 launched at $100 and now averages $20. The RADEON 9200 SE costs 25% less ($5 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (RADEON 9200 SE) vs 0.2 (RADEON IGP 320) — the RADEON IGP 320 offers 0% better value. The RADEON 9200 SE is the newer GPU (2025 vs 2021).
| Feature | RADEON 9200 SE | RADEON IGP 320 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $30-70% | $100 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $15-25% | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Codename | Strix Halo | Navi 21 |
| Release | January 6 2025 | November 4 2021 |
| Ranking | #98 | #136 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on RADEON 9200 SE and RADEON IGP 320
