GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 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)Rankine (2003−2005)
GPU code nameGMA HDNV36
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date10 January 2010 (14 years ago)23 October 2003 (21 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$199

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 MHz475 MHz
Number of transistorsno data82 million
Manufacturing process technology45 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)35 Watt46 Watt
Texture fill rateno data1.900
ROPsno data4
TMUsno data4

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 dataAGP 8x
Lengthno data229 mm
Widthno data1-slot
Supplementary power connectorsno data1x Molex

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 dataGDDR2
Maximum RAM amountno data128 MB
Memory bus widthno data128 Bit
Memory clock speedno data453 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data14.5 GB/s
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 data1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX109.0a
OpenGLno data1.5 (2.1)
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 10 January 2010 23 October 2003
Chip lithography 45 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 35 Watt 46 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics has an age advantage of 6 years, a 188.9% more advanced lithography process, and 31.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics and GeForce FX 5700 Ultra. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics is a notebook card while GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 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
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5700 Ultra
GeForce FX 5700 Ultra

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
2.6 5 votes

Rate GeForce FX 5700 Ultra 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.