Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3150 vs GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | no data | Gen. 4 (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | no data | Pineview |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 3 June 2008 (17 years ago) | 10 January 2010 (16 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 cores | 24 | 2 |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 200 MHz |
| Number of transistors | no data | 123 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 65 nm | 45 nm |
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 bus width | 64 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 3 June 2008 | 10 January 2010 |
| Chip lithography | 65 nm | 45 nm |
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3150 has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 44% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between GeForce 9400M GeForceBoost and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3150. 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.
