Radeon IGP 320M vs GeForce 256
Radeon IGP 320M
Popular choices:
GeForce 256
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 320M is positioned at rank 412 and the GeForce 256 is on rank 750, so the Radeon IGP 320M 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 320M
Performance Per Dollar GeForce 256
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
🚀 Performance Leadership
The GeForce 256 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 25% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the Radeon IGP 320M.
| Insight | Radeon IGP 320M | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-25%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+25%) |
| Longevity | RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm) | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt |
| Case Fit | — | 📏 Compact / SFF Friendly |
💎 Value Proposition
While current pricing data is unavailable, the GeForce 256 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 Radeon IGP 320M and GeForce 256
Radeon IGP 320M
The Radeon IGP 320M is manufactured by AMD. It was released in November 13 2019. It features the RDNA 1.0 architecture. The core clock ranges from 1000 MHz to 1250 MHz. It has 1280 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 85W. Manufactured using 7 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 4 points.
GeForce 256
The GeForce 256 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 5 points.
Graphics Performance
In G3D Mark, the Radeon IGP 320M scores 4 versus the GeForce 256's 5 — the GeForce 256 leads by 25%. The Radeon IGP 320M is built on RDNA 1.0 while the GeForce 256 uses Pascal, both on 7 nm vs 14 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon IGP 320M) vs 384 (GeForce 256). Raw compute: 3.2 TFLOPS (Radeon IGP 320M) vs 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce 256). Boost clocks: 1250 MHz vs 1038 MHz.
| Feature | Radeon IGP 320M | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 4 | 5+25% |
| Architecture | RDNA 1.0 | Pascal |
| Process Node | 7 nm | 14 nm |
| Shading Units | 1280+233% | 384 |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 3.2 TFLOPS+301% | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| Boost Clock | 1250 MHz+20% | 1038 MHz |
| ROPs | 32+100% | 16 |
| TMUs | 80+233% | 24 |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | Radeon IGP 320M | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 512 MB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 128-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon IGP 320M) vs 0.5 MB (GeForce 256) — the Radeon IGP 320M has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | Radeon IGP 320M | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 0.5 GB | 0.5 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 128-bit+100% |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB+300% | 0.5 MB |
Display & API Support
Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 1.
| Feature | Radeon IGP 320M | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| Max Displays | 2+100% | 1 |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (Radeon IGP 320M) vs None (GeForce 256). Decoder: None vs MPEG-2 Motion Comp. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (Radeon IGP 320M) vs MPEG-2 (GeForce 256).
| Feature | Radeon IGP 320M | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | None | MPEG-2 Motion Comp |
| Codecs | MPEG-2 | MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The Radeon IGP 320M draws 85W versus the GeForce 256's 10W — a 157.9% difference. The GeForce 256 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon IGP 320M) vs 350W (GeForce 256). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.
| Feature | Radeon IGP 320M | GeForce 256 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 85W | 10W-88% |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | PCIe-powered | Legacy |
| Length | — | 165mm |
| Height | — | 100mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 1 |
| Temp (Load) | — | 60°C |
| Perf/Watt | 0.0 | 0.5 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on Radeon IGP 320M and GeForce 256
