Radeon R9 290X2 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

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)GCN 2.0 (2013−2017)
GPU code nameGMA 950Hawaii
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 March 2005 (20 years ago)24 June 2014 (11 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$1,399

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 cores42816 ×2
Core clock speedno data1000 MHz
Boost clock speed250 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data6,200 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt580 Watt
Texture fill rateno data176.0 ×2
Floating-point processing powerno data5.632 TFLOPS ×2
ROPsno data64 ×2
TMUsno data176 ×2
L1 Cacheno data704 KB
L2 Cacheno data1024 KB

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 3.0 x16
Widthno data3-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data4x 8-pin

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 dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data4 GB ×2
Memory bus widthno data512 Bit ×2
Memory clock speedno data1350 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data345.6 GB/s ×2
Shared memory--

Connectivity and outputs

This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.

Display Connectorsno data2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort
HDMI-+

API and SDK support

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

DirectXno data12 (12_0)
Shader Modelno data6.3
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.0
Vulkan-1.2.131

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 March 2005 24 June 2014
Chip lithography 130 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 580 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 has 8185.7% lower power consumption.

R9 290X2, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 and Radeon R9 290X2. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 is a notebook graphics card while Radeon R9 290X2 is a desktop one.

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
AMD Radeon R9 290X2
Radeon R9 290X2

Other comparisons

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.


2.3 83 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 9 votes

Rate Radeon R9 290X2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 or Radeon R9 290X2, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.