Cedarview vs Cedar
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1152 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 2 (2009−2015) | PowerVR SGX545 (2008−2010) |
| GPU code name | Cedar | Cedarview |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Release date | no data | no data |
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 cores | 80 | 32 |
| Number of transistors | 292 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 65 nm |
| ROPs | 4 | 1 |
| TMUs | 8 | 4 |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 10.1 |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.1 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | ES 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
Pros & cons summary
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 65 nm |
Cedar has a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Cedar and Cedarview. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
