GMA 3150 vs GeForce GTX 980

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking2451617
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation9.70no data
Power efficiency12.46no data
ArchitectureMaxwell 2.0 (2014−2019)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGM204Pineview
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date19 September 2014 (11 years ago)9 May 2007 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$549 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.

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 cores204816
Core clock speed1064 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1216 MHzno data
Number of transistors5,200 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)165 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate155.60.8
Floating-point processing power4.981 TFLOPS0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs641
TMUs1282
L1 Cache768 KBno data
L2 Cache2 MBno data

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).

Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCI
Length267 mmno data
Height4.376" (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotno data
Recommended system power (PSU)500 Wattno data
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed7.0 GB/sSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth224 GB/sno data
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 ConnectorsDual Link DVI-I, HDMI 2.0, 3x DisplayPort 1.2No outputs
Multi monitor support4 displaysno data
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+-
HDCP+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
G-SYNC support+-
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+-
GeForce ShadowPlay+-
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+-
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+-
Optimus+-
BatteryBoost+-

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.52.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+-

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.

GTX 980 11073
+553550%
Samples: 14316
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 HD93no data
1440p51no data
4K39no data

Cost per frame, $

1080p5.90no data
1440p10.76no data
4K14.08no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 150−160 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 no data
Palworld 65−70 no data
Resident Evil 4 Remake 65−70 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 109 no data
Counter-Strike 2 150−160 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 no data
Far Cry 5 80 no data
Fortnite 242 no data
Forza Horizon 4 90 no data
Palworld 65−70 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 93 no data
Valorant 170−180 no data

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 90 no data
Counter-Strike 2 150−160 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 260−270 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 no data
Dota 2 120−130 no data
Far Cry 5 73 no data
Fortnite 116 no data
Forza Horizon 4 83 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 72 no data
Metro Exodus 60−65 no data
Palworld 65−70 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 79 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 85 no data
Valorant 170−180 no data

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 82 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 60−65 no data
Dota 2 120−130 no data
Far Cry 5 69 no data
Forza Horizon 4 59 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 56 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 46 no data
Valorant 170−180 no data

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 91 no data
Palworld 65−70 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 60−65 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 190−200 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 50−55 no data
Metro Exodus 35−40 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 170−180 no data
Valorant 200−210 no data

1440p
Ultra

Battlefield 5 62 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 27−30 no data
Far Cry 5 48 no data
Forza Horizon 4 48 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 45−50 no data

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 53 no data
Palworld 35−40 no data

4K
High

Counter-Strike 2 27−30 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 59 no data
Metro Exodus 21−24 no data
Palworld 21−24 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 29 no data
Valorant 150−160 no data

4K
Ultra

Battlefield 5 32 no data
Counter-Strike 2 27−30 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14 no data
Dota 2 85−90 no data
Far Cry 5 24 no data
Forza Horizon 4 34 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20 no data

4K
Epic

Fortnite 25 no data
Palworld 21−24 no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 19 September 2014 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 165 Watt 13 Watt

GTX 980 has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 61% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 1169% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 980 and GMA 3150. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce GTX 980 is a desktop graphics card while GMA 3150 is a notebook one.

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.


4.2 1763 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 980 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 GTX 980 or GMA 3150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.