GMA 950 vs Radeon R7 240
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 846 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.16 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 5.41 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2011−2020) | Generation 3.5 (2005) |
| GPU code name | Oland | Lakeport |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 1 May 2005 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $69 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 320 | no data |
| Core clock speed | no data | 166 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 780 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 950 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 7 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 14.00 | 0.66 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.448 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 1 |
| TMUs | 20 | 4 |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Length | 168 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | N/A | no 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 type | GDDR5 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 2 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 128 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1150 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 72 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGA | No outputs |
| HDMI | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 9.0c |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 1 May 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 7 Watt |
R7 240 has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
GMA 950, on the other hand, has 614.3% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 240 and GMA 950. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Radeon R7 240 is a desktop card while GMA 950 is a notebook one.
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.
