GMA 3000 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 3 (2005)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGMA 950Broadwater
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 March 2005 (19 years ago)1 June 2006 (18 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 cores4no data
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed250 MHzno data
Manufacturing process technology130 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rateno data1.600
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data4

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 1.0 x16

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 typeno dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectXno data9.0c
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 March 2005 1 June 2006
Chip lithography 130 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 13 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 has 85.7% lower power consumption.

GMA 3000, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 and GMA 3000. 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.


Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Intel GMA 3000
GMA 3000

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.


2.2 77 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 45 votes

Rate GMA 3000 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.