GeForce 720A vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated1025
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data3.19
ArchitectureGen. 4 (2007−2010)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameCrestlineGF117
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date9 May 2007 (18 years ago)1 July 2014 (11 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 cores896
Core clock speed500 MHz775 MHz
Boost clock speedno data938 MHz
Number of transistorsno data585 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)13.5 Watt33 Watt
Texture fill rateno data15.01
Floating-point processing powerno data0.1801 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data16

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 dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data1 GB
Memory bus widthno data64 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1000 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data16 GB/s
Shared memory-no data

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 dataNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX1012 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-2.1

Pros & cons summary


Recency 9 May 2007 1 July 2014
Chip lithography 90 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 13 Watt 33 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 has 153.8% lower power consumption.

GeForce 720A, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 and GeForce 720A. We've got no test results to judge.

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) X3100
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100
NVIDIA GeForce 720A
GeForce 720A

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.


3.5 161 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 6 votes

Rate GeForce 720A 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) X3100 or GeForce 720A, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.