GMA 3150 vs GeForce 320M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking13291617
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.55no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameC89Pineview
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 April 2010 (16 years ago)9 May 2007 (19 years ago)

Detailed specifications

General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores4816
Core clock speed450 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors486 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate7.2000.8
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPS0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs81
TMUs162

Form factor & compatibility

Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCI

VRAM capacity and type

Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
Shared memory++

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API and SDK support

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX11.1 (10_1)9.0c
Shader Model4.13.0
OpenGL3.32.0
OpenCLN/AN/A
VulkanN/AN/A

Synthetic benchmarks

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GeForce 320M 190
+9400%
Samples: 126
GMA 3150 2
Samples: 1

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD24no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 no data
Palworld 3−4 no data

Full HD
Medium

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 no data
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 no data
Palworld 3−4 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 no data
Valorant 24−27 no data

Full HD
High

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 no data
Dota 2 10−11 no data
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 no data
Palworld 3−4 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 no data
Valorant 24−27 no data

Full HD
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 no data
Dota 2 10−11 no data
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 8−9 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6−7 no data
Valorant 24−27 no data

Full HD
Epic

Palworld 3−4 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 2−3 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 2−3 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 5−6 no data

1440p
Ultra

Forza Horizon 4 1−2 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 no data

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 0−1 no data
Palworld 1−2 no data

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 no data
Valorant 5−6 no data

4K
Ultra

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 1−2 no data

4K
Epic

Fortnite 2−3 no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 2010 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 40 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 13 Watt

GeForce 320M has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 13% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 77% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 320M and GMA 3150. We've got no test results to judge.

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.5 68 votes

Rate GeForce 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.7 181 votes

Rate GMA 3150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce 320M or GMA 3150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.