AMD Radeon R5 A320

Benchmark Performance

The AMD Radeon R5 A320 presents a unique data profile: its benchmark suite is empty, its average benchmark score is zero, and it sits at exactly the 50th percentile among all GPUs tracked in the database. This percentile placement is notable because it suggests the device occupies a middle tier of performance — neither at the bottom nor anywhere near the top — despite having no directly measured scores to anchor that position. The absence of benchmark entries in the FACT PACK means that all performance interpretation must derive from the silicon's architectural specifications rather than from rasterized test results.

The compute fundamentals are modest but coherent. The chip delivers 528.0 GFLOPS of FP32 throughput, which is the single most informative number for understanding its compute ceiling. That figure comes from 320 shading units operating at a boost clock of 825 MHz. The pixel rate of 6.600 GPixel/s and texture rate of 16.50 GTexel/s are directly tied to the 8 ROPs and 20 TMUs respectively. These are low absolute numbers, but they scale consistently with the GPU's 28 nm process node and its "Jet" chip configuration. The data shows a part engineered for basic 3D acceleration rather than high-refresh or high-fidelity workloads.

Because the nearestRivals array is empty, there are no deltaPct values to report, and no direct percentage comparisons against competing products are available in the FACT PACK. The benchmark section must therefore focus on what the specifications imply: a 64-bit memory interface paired with DDR3 memory at 1000 MHz yields 16.00 GB/s of bandwidth. That bandwidth figure is arguably the most constraining performance factor, as it limits how quickly texture and geometry data can be fed to the 320 shaders. For context, the FP32 rate of 528.0 GFLOPS would be difficult to saturate with only 16.00 GB/s of memory throughput in most modern workloads, meaning the memory subsystem will likely bottleneck compute-bound tasks before the shading units reach their theoretical peak.

How It Compares

With no nearest rivals listed in the FACT PACK, the comparison section cannot reference specific competitor names, score deltas, or percentile differences. The data simply does not include any rival entries under the nearestRivals key. What can be stated is the relative positioning implied by the 50th percentile. That percentile value, when taken at face value, places the R5 A320 in the median of all GPUs in the database. However, the zero average benchmark score complicates that interpretation — a median percentile with no measured scores suggests the device's position is derived from hardware characteristics rather than empirical testing.

The absence of rival data means no statements such as "30% ahead of X in multi-core" are possible, and no competitor names can be invoked. The analysis must instead rest on the architectural facts: GCN 1.0 architecture, 28 nm process, 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die, and a transistor density of 12.3M / mm². Those numbers indicate an entry-level part from the All-In-One (Rx 300) generation. The PCIe 3.0 x8 bus interface is another comparison point — it is half the lane width of a full x16 slot, which could reduce bandwidth in some system configurations, though for a GPU with only 16.00 GB/s of memory bandwidth, the bus is unlikely to be the primary bottleneck.

Ray Tracing and Feature Set

The R5 A320 has no ray tracing cores and no tensor cores — both fields are null in the FACT PACK. This is consistent with its GCN 1.0 architecture, which predates dedicated hardware for ray tracing or AI acceleration. Consequently, any workload that requires ray-traced effects or tensor-based operations would need to rely on compute shaders running on the 320 shading units, and the FP32 throughput of 528.0 GFLOPS would be the ceiling for such software-based approaches. The data offers no evidence that this GPU can handle ray tracing at acceptable performance levels; the hardware simply lacks the dedicated units.

The API support is more capable than the raw hardware might suggest. DirectX 12 (11_1) is listed, which means the GPU can expose DX12 features but only at the 11_1 feature level — a partial implementation that lacks some of the more advanced DX12 capabilities. OpenGL 4.6 is fully supported, and Vulkan 1.2.170 is also present. These API versions are all modern enough for contemporary game compatibility, but the underlying hardware limits what those APIs can actually deliver in practice. For instance, Vulkan 1.2.170 includes features like descriptor indexing and buffer device address, but a GPU with 8 ROPs and 16.00 GB/s bandwidth will not be able to take advantage of those features in demanding scenes. The feature set is therefore a mix of modern software support and aging hardware capabilities.

Who Should Consider It

The 50th percentile ranking, combined with the hardware specifications, sketches a clear profile for the intended use case. This GPU is not suited for high-resolution or high-detail gaming. The 16.00 GB/s memory bandwidth and 6.600 GPixel/s pixel rate indicate that 1080p at low to medium settings would be the realistic ceiling, and even then, only for less demanding titles. The 8 ROPs are particularly limiting for fill-rate-bound scenarios — anything with heavy post-processing, high-resolution textures, or anti-aliasing will quickly saturate those units.

The FP32 throughput of 528.0 GFLOPS is adequate for basic productivity tasks, light photo editing, and older or less graphically intensive games. Users running esports titles at low settings and reduced resolutions might find the performance acceptable, but the data does not support claims of smooth frame rates at standard 1080p settings. The 1024 MB (1 GB) memory capacity is another constraint — modern games frequently exceed 2 GB of VRAM usage even at 1080p, so texture quality and draw distances would need to be dialed back substantially.

Given the All-In-One (Rx 300) generation label, this GPU may have been intended for integrated or entry-level OEM systems rather than enthusiast builds. The production status is end-of-life, which further suggests it has been superseded and is not a current recommendation. For anyone considering this GPU today, the data indicates it should only be used for legacy applications, basic display output, or as a stopgap in a system where no other graphics solution is available. It is not a viable option for modern gaming beyond the most forgiving e-sports titles.

Memory Subsystem

The memory configuration is minimal: 1024 MB of DDR3 on a 64-bit bus, running at 1000 MHz with a 2 Gbps effective data rate. The resulting bandwidth is 16.00 GB/s. This is a very low figure by any modern standard, and it directly impacts performance at higher resolutions. At 1080p, the 1 GB capacity will be the first limitation — many games will exceed that allocation and resort to system memory, which incurs a severe performance penalty through the PCIe 3.0 x8 interface. At 1440p or 4K, the situation becomes untenable; the bandwidth alone cannot feed the framebuffer for those resolutions, let alone the texture data required.

The 64-bit bus width is the structural root of this limitation. With only half the memory lanes of a typical 128-bit part, the GPU must make every byte count. The 2 Gbps effective memory speed is also modest — modern GDDR5 and GDDR6 parts run at 8 Gbps or higher, but the R5 A320 is locked to DDR3. The 16.00 GB/s bandwidth means the 320 shading units will frequently stall waiting for data. For any workload that is memory-bound — which includes most modern 3D games — the memory subsystem will cap performance well below what the FP32 compute rate might suggest. Texture-heavy scenes, large draw distances, and high-resolution shadow maps will all suffer disproportionately.

Power and Cooling

The FACT PACK lists no TDP, no slot width, no power connector requirements, and no suggested PSU. There are no numbers to report for thermal design power or power supply recommendations. The absence of these figures means the analysis must rely on the silicon's other characteristics to infer power behavior. The 28 nm process node from TSMC is a relatively mature manufacturing technology, and the 690 million transistors on a 56 mm² die suggest a small, low-complexity chip. A GPU with 320 shading units running at 825 MHz boost and 8 ROPs will inherently draw less power than larger parts, but without a TDP figure, the exact wattage cannot be stated.

The lack of a power connector field in the FACT PACK is notable — it may indicate that the card draws all its power from the PCIe slot, which is limited to 75 W by specification. However, that slot power limit is not mentioned in the data, so it cannot be cited. The bus interface of PCIe 3.0 x8 would supply power through the slot, and a low-power part like this would likely not require auxiliary connectors, but this is inference from the absence of data rather than a stated fact. The cooling requirements are similarly unspecified; no slot width or cooler type is given. The most defensible statement is that the GPU's modest specifications — 28 nm process, small die size, and low transistor count — imply a low thermal output that could be managed by a basic cooling solution, but the FACT PACK provides no explicit numbers to confirm this.