Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 vs Quadro FX 3800M

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking968not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency1.09no data
ArchitectureTesla (2006−2010)Gen. 3 (2005)
GPU code nameG92GMA 950
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date14 August 2008 (16 years ago)1 March 2005 (19 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 cores1284
Core clock speed675 MHzno data
Boost clock speedno data250 MHz
Number of transistors754 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology65 nm130 nm
Power consumption (TDP)100 Watt7 Watt
Texture fill rate43.20no data
Floating-point processing power0.4224 TFLOPSno data
ROPs16no data
TMUs64no 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).

Laptop sizelargeno data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)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.

Memory typeGDDR3no data
Maximum RAM amount1 GBno data
Memory bus width256 Bitno data
Memory clock speed1000 MHzno data
Memory bandwidth64 GB/sno 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 ConnectorsNo outputsno data

API compatibility

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

DirectX11.1 (10_0)no data
Shader Model4.0no data
OpenGL3.3no data
OpenCL1.1no data
VulkanN/A-
CUDA+-

Pros & cons summary


Recency 14 August 2008 1 March 2005
Chip lithography 65 nm 130 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 100 Watt 7 Watt

FX 3800M has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950, on the other hand, has 1328.6% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Quadro FX 3800M and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Quadro FX 3800M is a mobile workstation card while Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 is a mobile 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.


NVIDIA Quadro FX 3800M
Quadro FX 3800M
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950

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.


4 6 votes

Rate Quadro FX 3800M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.1 73 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) 950 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.