Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 vs GeForce FX 5600

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1483not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency0.06no data
ArchitectureRankine (2003−2005)Gen. 3 (2005)
GPU code nameNV31GMA 950
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Release date6 March 2003 (21 year ago)1 March 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 coresno data4
Core clock speed325 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data250 MHz
Number of transistors80 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology130 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)37 Watt7 Watt
Texture fill rate1.300no data
ROPs4no data
TMUs4no 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).

InterfaceAGP 8xno data
Width1-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeDDRno data
Maximum RAM amount128 MBno data
Memory bus width128 Bitno data
Memory clock speed250 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth8 GB/sno data
Shared memoryno 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Videono data

API compatibility

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

DirectX9.0ano data
OpenGL1.5 (2.1)no data
OpenCLN/Ano data
VulkanN/A-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 March 2003 1 March 2005
Power consumption (TDP) 37 Watt 7 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 has an age advantage of 1 year, and 428.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce FX 5600 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that GeForce FX 5600 is a desktop card while Graphics Media Accelerator (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.

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 FX 5600
GeForce FX 5600
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (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.


3.1 65 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5600 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.2 76 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (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.