Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650 vs Radeon R4 (Beema)
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1093 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.1 (2014) | PowerVR SGX5 (2008−2011) |
| GPU code name | Beema | Cedar Trail |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 April 2014 (10 years ago) | 1 November 2011 (13 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 | 128 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 800 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 640 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 32 nm |
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 Bit | no data |
| Shared memory | + | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 29 April 2014 | 1 November 2011 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 32 nm |
R4 (Beema) has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 14.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon R4 (Beema) and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3650. 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
