GMA 950 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking656not rated
Place by popularity30not in top-100
Power efficiency20.74no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Generation 3.5 (2005)
GPU code nameVega Raven RidgeLakeport
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date26 October 2017 (7 years ago)1 May 2005 (19 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 cores512no data
Core clock speedno data166 MHz
Boost clock speed1200 MHzno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt7 Watt
Texture fill rateno data0.66
ROPsno data1
TMUsno data4

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 1.0 x16

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 widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
Shared memory-no data

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 compatibility

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

DirectX12_19.0c
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 26 October 2017 1 May 2005
Chip lithography 14 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 7 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has an age advantage of 12 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 950, on the other hand, has 114.3% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and GMA 950. 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 RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Intel GMA 950
GMA 950

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.


3.5 1381 vote

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.8 139 votes

Rate GMA 950 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.