GMA 3150 vs Radeon RX Vega 3

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking8601622
Place by popularity83not in top-100
Power efficiency14.23no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code namePicassoPineview
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date20 November 2019 (6 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 cores19216
Core clock speed300 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1100 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,940 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology12 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate13.200.8
Floating-point processing power0.4224 TFLOPS0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs41
TMUs122

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).

InterfaceIGPPCI
WidthIGPno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 ConnectorsMotherboard DependentNo outputs

API and SDK support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c
Shader Model6.73.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/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.

RX Vega 3 1149
+57350%
Samples: 3055
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 HD12no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low

Counter-Strike 2 29 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 no data
Resident Evil 4 Remake 7 no data

Full HD
Medium

Battlefield 5 7 no data
Counter-Strike 2 22 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 no data
Far Cry 5 5 no data
Fortnite 14 no data
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 no data
Forza Horizon 5 9 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 no data
Valorant 45−50 no data

Full HD
High

Battlefield 5 9−10 no data
Counter-Strike 2 5 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 23 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 no data
Dota 2 21 no data
Far Cry 5 7−8 no data
Fortnite 14−16 no data
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 no data
Forza Horizon 5 7−8 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 9 no data
Metro Exodus 2 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 6 no data
Valorant 45−50 no data

Full HD
Ultra

Battlefield 5 9−10 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 no data
Dota 2 19 no data
Far Cry 5 7−8 no data
Forza Horizon 4 14−16 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4 no data
Valorant 45−50 no data

Full HD
Epic

Fortnite 14−16 no data

1440p
High

Counter-Strike 2 6−7 no data
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 21−24 no data
Metro Exodus 0−1 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 24−27 no data
Valorant 24−27 no data

1440p
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 no data
Far Cry 5 4−5 no data
Forza Horizon 4 6−7 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 no data

1440p
Epic

Fortnite 5−6 no data

4K
High

Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 no data
Valorant 12−14 no data

4K
Ultra

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 no data
Dota 2 8−9 no data
Far Cry 5 1−2 no data
Forza Horizon 4 2−3 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 no data

4K
Epic

Fortnite 3−4 no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 20 November 2019 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 12 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 13 Watt

RX Vega 3 has an age advantage of 12 years, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 15% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 3 and GMA 3150. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 3 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.


3.4 2289 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 3 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 Radeon RX Vega 3 or GMA 3150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.