GMA 3150 vs Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) and GMA 3150, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

R5 (Stoney Ridge)
2016
12 Watt
1.45
+14400%

R5 (Stoney Ridge) outperforms GMA 3150 by a whopping 14400% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking9961541
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency2.240.05
ArchitectureGCN 1.2/2.0 (2015−2016)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameStoney RidgePineview
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 June 2016 (8 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 cores19216
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed800 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data123 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)12-45 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rateno data0.8
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPsno data1
TMUsno data2

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).

Laptop sizemedium sizedno data
Interfaceno dataPCI

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 dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus width64 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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 dataNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)9.0c
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Gaming performance

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

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD9-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 4 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
Metro Exodus 2 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Fortnite 6−7 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 1−2 0−1
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 20 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 0−1
World of Tanks 30−33 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 2−3 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 7−8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 0−1
Dota 2 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 14−16 0−1

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 9−10 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
World of Tanks 8−9 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 1−2 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6 0−1
Valorant 7−8 0−1

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 14−16 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 4−5 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 0−1 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 1−2 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 0−1
Dota 2 16−18 0−1
Far Cry 5 1−2 0−1
Valorant 1−2 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.45 0.01
Recency 1 June 2016 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 12 Watt 13 Watt

R5 (Stoney Ridge) has a 14400% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 8.3% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the GMA 3150 in performance tests.

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 R5 (Stoney Ridge)
Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge)
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.


3.3 65 votes

Rate Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) 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 Radeon R5 (Stoney Ridge) or GMA 3150, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.