Radeon Vega 7 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot rated530
Place by popularitynot in top-10039
Power efficiencyno data11.56
ArchitectureGen. 3 (2005)GCN 5.1 (2018−2022)
GPU code nameGMA 950Cezanne
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 March 2005 (19 years ago)13 April 2021 (3 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 cores4448
Core clock speedno data300 MHz
Boost clock speed250 MHz1900 MHz
Number of transistorsno data9,800 million
Manufacturing process technology130 nm7 nm
Power consumption (TDP)7 Watt45 Watt
Texture fill rateno data53.20
Floating-point processing powerno data1.702 TFLOPS
ROPsno data8
TMUsno data28

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 dataIGP
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 dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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 Connectorsno dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectXno data12 (12_1)
Shader Modelno data6.4
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data2.1
Vulkan-1.2

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 March 2005 13 April 2021
Chip lithography 130 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 7 Watt 45 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 has 542.9% lower power consumption.

Vega 7, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 16 years, and a 1757.1% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 and Radeon Vega 7. 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.


Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
AMD Radeon Vega 7
Radeon Vega 7

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
3.8 1975 votes

Rate Radeon Vega 7 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.