GeForce 9100M G mGPU vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics

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. 5 Arrandale (2010)Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code nameGMA HDC79
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)29 July 2008 (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 cores128
Core clock speed500 MHz450 MHz
Number of transistorsno data314 million
Manufacturing process technology45 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt12 Watt
Texture fill rateno data3.600
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0176 TFLOPS
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data8

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 2.0 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.

DirectX1011.1 (10_0)
Shader Modelno data4.0
OpenGLno data3.3
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 January 2010 29 July 2008
Chip lithography 45 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 12 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics has an age advantage of 1 year, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.

9100M G mGPU, on the other hand, has 191.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics and GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel. 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) HD Graphics
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics
NVIDIA GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel
GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel

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.


3.3 137 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate GeForce 9100M G mGPU Intel 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.