GMA 3150 vs GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile and GMA 3150, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
RTX 2080 Mobile outperforms GMA 3150 by a whopping 394200% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 114 | 1546 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 18.09 | 0.05 |
| Architecture | Turing (2018−2022) | Generation 4.0 (2006−2007) |
| GPU code name | TU104B | Pineview |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 29 January 2019 (6 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 cores | 2944 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 1380 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1590 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 13,600 million | 123 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 12 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 13 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 292.6 | 0.8 |
| Floating-point processing power | 9.362 TFLOPS | 0.0128 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 64 | 1 |
| TMUs | 184 | 2 |
| Tensor Cores | 368 | no data |
| Ray Tracing Cores | 46 | no 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCI |
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 type | GDDR6 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 14000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 384.0 GB/s | no 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| G-SYNC support | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| VR Ready | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 Ultimate (12_1) | 9.0c |
| Shader Model | 6.5 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 7.5 | - |
| DLSS | + | - |
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 145 | -0−1 |
| 1440p | 98 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 67 | -0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 132 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 104 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 206 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 147 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 243 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 276 | 0−1 |
Full HD
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 118 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 270−280 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 131 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 97 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 169 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 145 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 101 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 90 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 214 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 174 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 266 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 117 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 80−85 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 85−90 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 125 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 96 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 139 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 174 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 95 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 205 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 155 | 0−1 |
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 250−260 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 55 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 170−180 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 260 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 115 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 82 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 122 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 65−70 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65−70 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 124 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Atomic Heart | 30−33 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 35 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 65 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 240 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 68 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 119 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 52 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 82 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 61 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 61 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 39.43 | 0.01 |
| Recency | 29 January 2019 | 9 May 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 12 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 13 Watt |
RTX 2080 Mobile has a 394200% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 275% more advanced lithography process.
GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 1053.8% lower power consumption.
The GeForce RTX 2080 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GMA 3150 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
