ATI Radeon 3000 IGP vs GeForce GTX 465

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking558not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.23no data
Power efficiency2.36no data
ArchitectureFermi (2010−2014)TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code nameGF100RS780
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date31 May 2010 (14 years ago)2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$279 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

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 cores35240
Core clock speed607 MHz350 MHz
Number of transistors3,100 million180 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)200 Wattno data
Maximum GPU temperature105 °Cno data
Texture fill rate26.751.400
Floating-point processing power0.8554 TFLOPSno data
Compute performance30xno data
ROPs324
TMUs444

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 2.0 x 16no data
InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Height4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)no data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2x 6-pinno data
SLI options+-

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount1 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width256 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1603 MHz (3206 data rate)System Shared
Memory bandwidth102.6 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsTwo Dual Link DVIMini HDMIMotherboard Dependent
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.

DirectX12 (11_0)10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model5.14.1
OpenGL4.23.3
OpenCL1.11.0
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 40 nm 65 nm

GTX 465 has a 62.5% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 465 and Radeon 3000 IGP. 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.

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 GTX 465
GeForce GTX 465
ATI Radeon 3000 IGP
Radeon 3000 IGP

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.


3.7 100 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 465 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.8 292 votes

Rate Radeon 3000 IGP 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.