Tesla X2090 vs Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100

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. 4 (2007−2010)Fermi 2.0 (2010−2014)
GPU code nameCrestlineGF110
Market segmentLaptopWorkstation
Release date9 May 2007 (17 years ago)25 July 2011 (13 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 cores8512
Core clock speed500 MHz651 MHz
Number of transistorsno data3,000 million
Manufacturing process technology90 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)13.5 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rateno data41.66
Floating-point processing powerno data1.332 TFLOPS
ROPsno data48
TMUsno data64

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 2.0 x16
Widthno dataMXM Module

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 dataGDDR5
Maximum RAM amountno data6 GB
Memory bus widthno data384 Bit
Memory clock speedno data924 MHz
Memory bandwidthno data177.4 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 dataNo outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX1012 (11_0)
Shader Modelno data5.1
OpenGLno data4.6
OpenCLno data1.1
Vulkan-N/A
CUDA-2.0

Pros & cons summary


Recency 9 May 2007 25 July 2011
Chip lithography 90 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 13 Watt 225 Watt

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 has 1630.8% lower power consumption.

Tesla X2090, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 125% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 and Tesla X2090. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 is a notebook card while Tesla X2090 is a workstation 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) X3100
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100
NVIDIA Tesla X2090
Tesla X2090

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.


3.6 158 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.3 3 votes

Rate Tesla X2090 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.