Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 500 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100
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 | Gen. 4 (2007−2010) | PowerVR SGX5 (2008−2011) |
| GPU code name | Crestline | GMA 500 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (17 years ago) | 1 November 2008 (16 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 | 8 | 4 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | 200 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 130 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13.5 Watt | no data |
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 | - | + |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 10.1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 1 November 2008 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 130 nm |
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 has a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 500, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.
We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 500. 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.
