GMA X3500 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics

Primary details

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

Place in the rankingnot ratednot rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGen. 5 Arrandale (2010)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameGMA HDBearlake
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)1 August 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 cores12no data
Core clock speed500 MHz667 MHz
Manufacturing process technology45 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rateno data5.336
ROPsno data1
TMUsno data8

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 1.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP

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+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 dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX109.0c
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 January 2010 1 August 2007
Chip lithography 45 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 13 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics has an age advantage of 2 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

GMA X3500, on the other hand, has 169.2% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics and GMA X3500. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics is a notebook card while GMA X3500 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) HD Graphics
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics
Intel GMA X3500
GMA X3500

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.


3.3 137 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 11 votes

Rate GMA X3500 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.