Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 vs HD Graphics 530

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking818not rated
Place by popularity97not in top-100
Power efficiency12.04no data
ArchitectureGeneration 9.0 (2015−2016)Gen. 4 (2007−2010)
GPU code nameSkylake GT2Crestline
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 September 2015 (9 years ago)9 May 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 cores1928
Core clock speed350 MHz500 MHz
Boost clock speed950 MHzno data
Number of transistors189 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm+90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt13.5 Watt
Texture fill rate22.80no data
Floating-point processing power0.3648 TFLOPSno data
ROPs3no data
TMUs24no data

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).

InterfaceRing Busno 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.

Memory typeDDR3L/LPDDR3/LPDDR4no data
Maximum RAM amount64 GBno data
Memory bus widthSystem Sharedno data
Memory clock speedSystem Sharedno data
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 ConnectorsPortable Device Dependentno data

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Quick Sync+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)10
Shader Model6.4no data
OpenGL4.6no data
OpenCL3.0no data
Vulkan+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 September 2015 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 14 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 13 Watt

HD Graphics 530 has an age advantage of 8 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100, on the other hand, has 15.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between HD Graphics 530 and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100. 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.

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 HD Graphics 530
HD Graphics 530
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100

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.


3.1 1480 votes

Rate HD Graphics 530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 158 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) X3100 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.