Radeon IGP 320M vs RADEON 9200 SE

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 RADEON 9200 SE is on rank 742, so the Radeon IGP 320M 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 Radeon IGP 320M

#397

Tesla K20m

MSRP: $3199|Avg: $55

113638%

#412

Radeon IGP 320M

MSRP: N/A|Avg: N/A

100%

#413

GRID P4-1Q

MSRP: $5890|Avg: $185

92%

#415

GRID RTX6000-2Q

MSRP: $6300|Avg: $1500

77%

#417

GRID M60-0B

MSRP: $19900|Avg: $19900

69%

#418

Quadro FX 4500 X2

MSRP: $2799|Avg: $2799

62%

#419

Quadro FX 5500

MSRP: $2999|Avg: $30

62%

#420

Quadro FX 1000

MSRP: $500|Avg: $30

54%

#421

Quadro FX 3400/4400

MSRP: $1799|Avg: $50

46%

#422

Quadro FX 1300

MSRP: $599|Avg: $15

46%

#423

Quadro FX 4000

MSRP: $2199|Avg: $50

38%

#424

RADEON IGP 320

MSRP: $100|Avg: $20

31%

#425

Quadro FX 500/FX 600

MSRP: $449|Avg: $15

15%

#426

Quadro FX 2000

MSRP: $3000|Avg: $40

8%

#427

GRID V100-8Q

MSRP: $10000|Avg: $10000

0%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Per Dollar RADEON 9200 SE

#732

Radeon RX 550X (móvel)

MSRP: $35|Avg: $35

108570%

#734

GeForce GTX 1070 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $150

98420%

#735

GeForce GTX 1060 with Max-Q Design

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $100

98160%

#739

GeForce GTX 1050 (Mobile)

MSRP: N/A|Avg: $50

89260%

#740

Radeon RX 6300

MSRP: $60|Avg: $40

88650%

#742

RADEON 9200 SE

MSRP: $30|Avg: $15

100%

#743

RADEON 9000

MSRP: $49|Avg: $20

100%

#744

MOBILITY RADEON 7500

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

80%

#745

MOBILITY RADEON 9000

MSRP: $50|Avg: $5

60%

#746

MOBILITY RADEON 9200

MSRP: $49|Avg: $15

60%

#747

GeForce4 MX 420

MSRP: $99|Avg: $10

50%

#748

RADEON 9250

MSRP: $79|Avg: $25

40%

#749

RADEON 9200

MSRP: $99|Avg: $25

40%

#750

RADEON 7200

MSRP: $99|Avg: $45

30%

#751

GeForce4 MX 440

MSRP: $149|Avg: $49

30%

#752

GeForce 256

MSRP: $199|Avg: $20

30%

#753

GeForce2 MX/MX 400

MSRP: $129|Avg: $15

30%

#754

GeForce2 MX

MSRP: $129|Avg: $49

20%

#755

GeForce3

MSRP: $499|Avg: $49

10%

#756

GeForce4 440

MSRP: $469|Avg: $49

10%

Based on actual market prices and performance benchmarks.

Performance Comparison

About G3D Mark

🏆 Chipversus Verdict

⚠️ Generational Difference

The RADEON 9200 SE is significantly newer (2025 vs 2019). The RADEON 9200 SE likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The Radeon IGP 320M lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.

🚀 Performance Leadership

The Radeon IGP 320M 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 IGP 320M	RADEON 9200 SE
Performance	✅Leading raw performance (+33.3%)	❌Lower raw frame rates (-33.3%)
Longevity	RDNA 1.0 (2019−2020) (7nm)	RDNA 3.5 (2024−2025) (4nm)
Ecosystem	Supports FSR Upscaling	Supports FSR Upscaling
VRAM	✅ More VRAM (+100%)	❌ Less VRAM capacity
Efficiency	Normal Efficiency	💡 Excellent Perf/Watt
Case Fit	—	📏 Compact / SFF Friendly

💎 Value Proposition

While current pricing data is unavailable, the Radeon IGP 320M 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.

Radeon IGP 320M Benchmark Check

RADEON 9200 SE Benchmark Check

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of Radeon IGP 320M and RADEON 9200 SE

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.

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.

⚡

Graphics Performance

In G3D Mark, the Radeon IGP 320M scores 4 versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 3 — the Radeon IGP 320M leads by 33.3%. The Radeon IGP 320M is built on RDNA 1.0 while the RADEON 9200 SE uses RDNA 3.5, both on 7 nm vs 4 nm. Shader units: 1,280 (Radeon IGP 320M) vs 2,560 (RADEON 9200 SE). Raw compute: 3.2 TFLOPS (Radeon IGP 320M) vs 14.85 TFLOPS (RADEON 9200 SE). Boost clocks: 1250 MHz vs 2900 MHz.

Feature	Radeon IGP 320M	RADEON 9200 SE
G3D Mark Score	4+33%	3
Architecture	RDNA 1.0	RDNA 3.5
Process Node	7 nm	4 nm
Shading Units	1280	2560+100%
Compute (TFLOPS)	3.2 TFLOPS	14.85 TFLOPS+364%
Boost Clock	1250 MHz	2900 MHz+132%
ROPs	32	64+100%
TMUs	80	160+100%
L2 Cache	2 MB	8 MB+300%

✨

Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)

Feature	Radeon IGP 320M	RADEON 9200 SE
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 320M comes with 512 MB of VRAM, while the RADEON 9200 SE has 256 MB. The Radeon IGP 320M offers 100% more capacity, crucial for higher resolutions and texture-heavy games. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 2 MB (Radeon IGP 320M) vs 8 MB (RADEON 9200 SE) — the RADEON 9200 SE has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.

Feature	Radeon IGP 320M	RADEON 9200 SE
VRAM Capacity	0.5 GB+100%	0.25 GB
Memory Type	GDDR5	GDDR5
Bus Width	64-bit	64-bit
L2 Cache	2 MB	8 MB+300%

🖥️

Display & API Support

Maximum simultaneous displays: 2 vs 2.

Feature	Radeon IGP 320M	RADEON 9200 SE
Max Displays	2	2

🎬

Media & Encoding

Hardware encoder: None (Radeon IGP 320M) vs None (RADEON 9200 SE). Decoder: None vs None. Supported codecs: MPEG-2 (Radeon IGP 320M) vs MPEG-2 (RADEON 9200 SE).

Feature	Radeon IGP 320M	RADEON 9200 SE
Encoder	None	None
Decoder	None	None
Codecs	MPEG-2	MPEG-2

🔌

Power & Dimensions

The Radeon IGP 320M draws 85W versus the RADEON 9200 SE's 55W — a 42.9% difference. The RADEON 9200 SE is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (Radeon IGP 320M) vs 350W (RADEON 9200 SE). Power connectors: PCIe-powered vs Legacy.