
RADEON IGP 320 vs RADEON 9000

RADEON IGP 320
Popular choices:

RADEON 9000
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 IGP 320 is positioned at rank 424 and the RADEON 9000 is on rank 742, 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 IGP 320
Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9000
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The RADEON 9000 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score. However, the RADEON IGP 320 offers more VRAM, which may be beneficial for texture-heavy scenarios at higher resolutions.
| Insight | RADEON IGP 320 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 2.0 (2020−2025) (7nm) | RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ✅ More VRAM (+300%) | ❌ Less VRAM capacity |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | — |
💎 Value Proposition
The RADEON 9000 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Although it costs $20 (vs $20), its significant performance lead justifies the premium, offering 25% better value per dollar than the RADEON IGP 320.
| Insight | RADEON IGP 320 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+25%) |
| 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 RADEON IGP 320 and RADEON 9000

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.

RADEON 9000
The RADEON 9000 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in July 15 2024. It features the RDNA 3.5 architecture. The core clock ranges from 400 MHz to 2900 MHz. It has 1024 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 15W. Manufactured using 4 nm process technology. It features 16 dedicated ray tracing cores for enhanced lighting effects. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the RADEON IGP 320 scores 4 versus the RADEON 9000's 5 — the RADEON 9000 leads by 25%. The RADEON IGP 320 is built on RDNA 2.0 while the RADEON 9000 uses RDNA 3.5, both on 7 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 4,608 (RADEON IGP 320) vs 1,024 (RADEON 9000). Raw compute: 20.28 TFLOPS (RADEON IGP 320) vs 5.939 TFLOPS (RADEON 9000). Boost clocks: 2200 MHz vs 2900 MHz. Ray tracing: 72 RT cores (RADEON IGP 320) vs 16 (RADEON 9000).
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | RDNA 2.0 | RDNA 3.5 |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 4 nm |
| Shading Units | 4608+350% | 1024 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 20.28 TFLOPS+241% | 5.939 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 2200 MHz | 2900 MHz+32% |
| ROPs | 128+300% | 32 |
| TMUs | 288+350% | 64 |
| L1 Cache | 1 MB+300% | 0.25 MB |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+100% | 2 MB |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 72+350% | 16 |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 IGP 320 comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9000 has 128 MB. The RADEON IGP 320 offers 300% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 4 MB (RADEON IGP 320) vs 2 MB (RADEON 9000) — the RADEON IGP 320 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB+300% | 0.125 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 4 MB+100% | 2 MB |
Power & Dimensions
The RADEON IGP 320 draws 300W versus the RADEON 9000's 15W — a 181% difference. The RADEON 9000 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (RADEON IGP 320) vs 350W (RADEON 9000). Power connectors: Legacy vs Legacy.
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 300W | 15W-95% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Legacy | Legacy |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.3 |
Value Analysis
The RADEON IGP 320 launched at $100 MSRP and currently averages $20, while the RADEON 9000 launched at $49 and now averages $20. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 0.2 (RADEON IGP 320) vs 0.3 (RADEON 9000) — the RADEON 9000 offers 50% better value. The RADEON 9000 is the newer GPU (2024 vs 2021).
| Feature | RADEON IGP 320 | RADEON 9000 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $100 | $49-51% |
| Avg Price (30d) | $20 | $20 |
| Performance per Dollar | 0.2 | 0.3+50% |
| Codename | Navi 21 | Strix Point |
| Release | November 4 2021 | July 15 2024 |
| Ranking | #136 | #312 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.















