Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | PowerVR SGX5 (2008−2011) | Gen. 3 (2005) |
| GPU code name | Cedar Trail | GMA 900 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 November 2011 (13 years 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 cores | 4 | 4 |
| Boost clock speed | 400 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 130 nm |
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.
| Shared memory | + | - |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 November 2011 | 1 March 2005 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 130 nm |
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600 has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 306.3% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 3600 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 900. 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
