Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 vs GeForce 210

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1326not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.66no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Gen. 3 (2005)
GPU code nameGT218GMA 950
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date12 October 2009 (15 years ago)1 March 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$29.49 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 cores164
Core clock speed589 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data250 MHz
Number of transistors260 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)30.5 Watt7 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate4.160no data
Floating-point processing power0.03936 TFLOPSno data
ROPs4no data
TMUs8no 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-E 2.0no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16no data
Length168 mmno data
Height2.731" (6.9 cm)no data
Width1-slotno 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 typeGDDR2no data
Maximum RAM amount512 MBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed500 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth8.0 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 ConnectorsDVIVGADisplayPortno data
Multi monitor support+no data
HDMI+-
Maximum VGA resolution2048x1536no data
Audio input for HDMIInternalno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)no data
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.1no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 12 October 2009 1 March 2005
Chip lithography 40 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 30 Watt 7 Watt

GeForce 210 has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 225% more advanced lithography process.

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950, on the other hand, has 328.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 210 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 210 is a desktop card while Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 is a notebook one.


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.


NVIDIA GeForce 210
GeForce 210
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


2.6 3661 vote

Rate GeForce 210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 77 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 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.