Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3150
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 4 (2007−2010) | Gen. 3 (2005) |
| GPU code name | Pineview | GMA 950 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 10 January 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 March 2005 (19 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 2 | 4 |
| Boost clock speed | 200 MHz | 250 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 123 Million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 45 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 7 Watt |
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.
| Shared memory | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 10 January 2010 | 1 March 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 130 nm |
We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3150 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950. 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.
