Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 vs HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge)
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1368 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Gen. 6 Sandy Bridge (2011) | Gen. 3 (2005) |
| GPU code name | Sandy Bridge | GMA 950 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 May 2011 (15 years ago) | 1 March 2005 (21 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 cores | 6 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 350 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 1100 MHz | 250 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 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.
| Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10.1 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 May 2011 | 1 March 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 130 nm |
HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 306% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between HD Graphics (Sandy Bridge) and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950. We've got no test results to judge.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
