GMA 3150 vs NVS 3100M

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared NVS 3100M with GMA 3150, including specs and performance data.

NVS 3100M
2010
512 MB GDDR3, 14 Watt
0.52
+5100%

NVS 3100M outperforms GMA 3150 by a whopping 5100% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking12371546
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.610.05
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGT218Pineview
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date7 January 2010 (15 years ago)9 May 2007 (17 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 cores1616
Core clock speed606 MHz400 MHz
Number of transistors260 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology40 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)14 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate4.8480.8
Floating-point processing power0.04698 TFLOPS0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs41
TMUs82

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).

InterfacePCIe 2.0 x16PCI

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 typeGDDR3System Shared
Maximum RAM amount512 MBSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed790 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth12.64 GB/sno data
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 outputsNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)9.0c
Shader Model4.13.0
OpenGL3.32.0
OpenCL1.1N/A
VulkanN/AN/A
CUDA1.2-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark score.

NVS 3100M 0.52
+5100%
GMA 3150 0.01

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

NVS 3100M 204
+10100%
GMA 3150 2

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Atomic Heart 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5 0−1
Valorant 27−30 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 3−4 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 1−2 0−1

1440p
Epic Preset

Fortnite 1−2 0−1

4K
High Preset

Atomic Heart 0−1 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
Valorant 3−4 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 2−3 0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Fortnite 2−3 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.52 0.01
Recency 7 January 2010 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 40 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 14 Watt 13 Watt

NVS 3100M has a 5100% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 12.5% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 7.7% lower power consumption.

The NVS 3100M is our recommended choice as it beats the GMA 3150 in performance tests.

Be aware that NVS 3100M is a mobile workstation card while GMA 3150 is a mobile workstation 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.


NVIDIA NVS 3100M
NVS 3100M
Intel GMA 3150
GMA 3150

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.


3.1 138 votes

Rate NVS 3100M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 142 votes

Rate GMA 3150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can give us your opinion about NVS 3100M or GMA 3150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.