Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 500 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000)
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 653 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | 30 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 20.78 | no data |
| Architecture | Vega (2017−2020) | PowerVR SGX5 (2008−2011) |
| GPU code name | Vega Raven Ridge | GMA 500 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 26 October 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 November 2008 (16 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 | 512 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 200 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1200 MHz | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 15 Watt | 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.
| Shared memory | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12_1 | 10.1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 26 October 2017 | 1 November 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 130 nm |
RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 828.6% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 2000/3000) and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 500. 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.
