Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 vs Radeon 520

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking878not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.84no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Gen. 4 (2007−2010)
GPU code nameBanksCrestline
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date18 April 2017 (7 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 cores3208
Core clock speed1030 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors690 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt13.5 Watt
Texture fill rate20.60no data
Floating-point processing power0.6592 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs20no data

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 3.0 x8no data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno data

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 typeGDDR5no data
Maximum RAM amount2 GBno data
Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1125 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth36 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 data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_1)10
Shader Model5.1no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL1.2no data
Vulkan1.2.131-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 18 April 2017 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 13 Watt

Radeon 520 has an age advantage of 9 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100, on the other hand, has 284.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon 520 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100. 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.


AMD Radeon 520
Radeon 520
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100

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.


3 334 votes

Rate Radeon 520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 158 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 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.