Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 vs GeForce 320M

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1220not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.64no data
ArchitectureTesla 2.0 (2007−2013)Gen. 4 (2007−2010)
GPU code nameC89Crestline
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 April 2010 (14 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 cores488
Core clock speed450 MHz500 MHz
Number of transistors486 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology40 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)23 Watt13.5 Watt
Texture fill rate7.200no data
Floating-point processing power0.0912 TFLOPSno data
ROPs8no data
TMUs16no data

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 2.0 x16no 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 typeSystem Sharedno data
Maximum RAM amountSystem Sharedno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_1)10
Shader Model4.1no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 April 2010 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 40 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 23 Watt 13 Watt

GeForce 320M has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100, on the other hand, has 76.9% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce 320M and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100. 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.


NVIDIA GeForce 320M
GeForce 320M
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100

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 52 votes

Rate GeForce 320M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 158 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 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.