Radeon R5 A240 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated975
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiencyno data2.06
ArchitectureGen. 3 (2005)GCN 1.0 (2011−2020)
GPU code nameGMA 950Oland
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date1 March 2005 (19 years ago)2014 (10 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 cores4320
Core clock speedno data1030 MHz
Boost clock speed250 MHz780 MHz
Number of transistorsno data950 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt50 Watt
Texture fill rateno data15.60
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data20

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).

Interfaceno dataPCIe 3.0 x8
Lengthno data168 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone

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 typeno dataDDR3
Maximum RAM amountno data2 GB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data1800 MBps
Memory bandwidthno data28.8 GB/s
Shared memory-no 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 data1x DVI, 1x HDMI 1.4a, 1x VGA
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectXno data12 (11_1)
Shader Modelno data6.5 (5.1)
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.1 (1.2)
Vulkan-1.2.170

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 130 nm 28 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 50 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 has 614.3% lower power consumption.

R5 A240, on the other hand, has a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 and Radeon R5 A240. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 is a notebook card while Radeon R5 A240 is a desktop 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.


Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
AMD Radeon R5 A240
Radeon R5 A240

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.


2.2 76 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 3 votes

Rate Radeon R5 A240 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.