GMA 3150 vs GeForce GTX 760A

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking745not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency4.00no data
ArchitectureKepler (2012−2018)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGK106Pineview
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date17 March 2014 (10 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 cores76816
Core clock speed628 MHz400 MHz
Boost clock speed657 MHzno data
Number of transistors2,540 million123 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate42.050.8
Floating-point processing power1.009 TFLOPS0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPs161
TMUs642

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

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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1002 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth64.13 GB/sno 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 outputsNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (11_0)9.0c
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan1.1.126N/A
CUDA3.0-

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.

GTX 760A 1226
+61200%
GMA 3150 2

Pros & cons summary


Recency 17 March 2014 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 13 Watt

GTX 760A has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 323.1% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between GeForce GTX 760A and GMA 3150. 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 GTX 760A
GeForce GTX 760A
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.


3.2 25 votes

Rate GeForce GTX 760A on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 140 votes

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.