GMA 3150 vs Radeon RX Vega Nano

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated1531
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data0.05
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameVega 10Pineview
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release dateno data (2024 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 cores409616
Core clock speed1200 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed1546 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)175 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate395.80.8
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs641
TMUs2562

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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCI
Length152 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 8-pinno 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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width2048 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1600 MBpsSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/sno 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 Connectors1x HDMI 2.0b, 3x DisplayPort 1.4aNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c
Shader Model6.73.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL2.1N/A
Vulkan1.3N/A

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 14 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 175 Watt 13 Watt

RX Vega Nano has a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 1246.2% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega Nano and GMA 3150. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega Nano is a desktop card while GMA 3150 is a notebook one.


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 Nano
Radeon RX Vega Nano
Intel GMA 3150
GMA 3150

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 4 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega Nano on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 141 vote

Rate GMA 3150 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.