Radeon RX Vega 2 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100
Contents
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) | Vega (2017−2020) |
| GPU code name | Crestline | Vega Raven Ridge |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 9 May 2007 (19 years ago) | 7 January 2018 (8 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 | 128 |
| Core clock speed | 500 MHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1100 MHz |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13.5 Watt | 15 Watt |
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 and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 10 | 12_1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 9 May 2007 | 7 January 2018 |
| Chip lithography | 90 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 13 Watt | 15 Watt |
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 has 15% lower power consumption.
RX Vega 2, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 650% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 and Radeon RX Vega 2. We've got no test results to judge.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
