Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 vs UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake)
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 443 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 64.93 | no data |
| Architecture | no data | Gen. 3 (2005) |
| GPU code name | Rocket Lake GT1 | GMA 950 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 30 March 2021 (5 years ago) | 1 March 2005 (21 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 cores | no data | 4 |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 250 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 7 Watt |
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.
| Shared memory | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 30 March 2021 | 1 March 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 7 Watt |
UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) has an age advantage of 16 years, and a 829% more advanced lithography process.
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950, on the other hand, has 114% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between UHD Graphics 730 (Rocket Lake) and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950. 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.
