GMA X3100 vs GeForce 920M

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking907not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency3.92no data
ArchitectureKepler 2.0 (2013−2015)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGK208BBroadwater
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date13 March 2015 (9 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 cores384no data
Core clock speed954 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors915 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)33 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate30.534.000
Floating-point processing power0.7327 TFLOPSno data
ROPs81
TMUs328

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 Express 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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 typeDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount4 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed900 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth14.4 GB/sno data
Shared memory-no data

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

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GPU Boost2.0no data
Optimus+-
GameWorks+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)9.0c
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.52.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 13 March 2015 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 33 Watt 13 Watt

GeForce 920M has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

GMA X3100, on the other hand, has 153.8% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 920M and GMA X3100. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce 920M is a notebook card while GMA X3100 is a desktop 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 920M
GeForce 920M
Intel GMA X3100
GMA X3100

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.


3.1 1277 votes

Rate GeForce 920M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 57 votes

Rate GMA X3100 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.