GMA 3150 vs Arc A350M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Arc A350M and GMA 3150, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

Arc A350M
2022
4 GB GDDR6, 25 Watt
14.56
+145500%

Arc A350M outperforms GMA 3150 by a whopping 145500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking3611537
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency40.150.05
ArchitectureGeneration 12.7 (2022−2023)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameDG2-128Pineview
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date30 March 2022 (2 years ago)9 May 2007 (17 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores76816
Core clock speed300 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1150 MHzno data
Number of transistors7,200 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology6 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate55.200.8
Floating-point processing power1.766 TFLOPS0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs241
TMUs482
Ray Tracing Cores6no 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).

InterfacePCIe 4.0 x8PCI

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 typeGDDR6System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1750 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth112.0 GB/sno data
Shared memory-+

Connectivity and outputs

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 Ultimate (12_2)9.0c
Shader Model6.63.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL3.0N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A

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 HD35-0−1
1440p16-0−1
4K9-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 27 0−1
Elden Ring 22 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 9 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 66 0−1
Metro Exodus 40−45 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40 0−1
Valorant 56 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 8 0−1
Dota 2 38 0−1
Elden Ring 42 0−1
Far Cry 5 27 0−1
Fortnite 80−85 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 53 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 26 0−1
Metro Exodus 40−45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 40−45 0−1
Valorant 55−60 0−1
World of Tanks 190−200 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 45−50 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 24−27 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 6 0−1
Dota 2 59 0−1
Far Cry 5 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 45 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 100−110 0−1
Valorant 55−60 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 10 0−1
Elden Ring 17 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 120−130 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 12−14 0−1
World of Tanks 100−110 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 30−35 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 10−12 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 37 0−1
Metro Exodus 30−35 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 18−20 0−1
Valorant 35−40 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Dota 2 11 0−1
Elden Ring 3 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 11 0−1
Metro Exodus 10−11 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 9−10 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 10−11 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5 0−1
Dota 2 24−27 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Fortnite 16−18 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 19 0−1
Valorant 16−18 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 14.56 0.01
Recency 30 March 2022 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 6 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 13 Watt

Arc A350M has a 145500% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 92.3% lower power consumption.

The Arc A350M is our recommended choice as it beats the GMA 3150 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


Intel Arc A350M
Arc A350M
Intel GMA 3150
GMA 3150

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.


3.8 57 votes

Rate Arc A350M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 141 vote

Rate GMA 3150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.