Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics vs Radeon R4 (Beema)

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1096not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
ArchitectureGCN 1.1 (2014)Gen. 5 Arrandale (2010)
GPU code nameBeemaGMA HD
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date29 April 2014 (10 years ago)10 January 2010 (14 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 cores12812
Core clock speed800 MHz500 MHz
Manufacturing process technology28 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)no data35 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.

Memory bus width64 Bitno data
Shared memory++

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (FL 12_0)10

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.



3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

R4 (Beema) 2506
+742%
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics 298

Pros & cons summary


Recency 29 April 2014 10 January 2010
Chip lithography 28 nm 45 nm

R4 (Beema) has an age advantage of 4 years, and a 60.7% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R4 (Beema) and Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics. 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.


AMD Radeon R4 (Beema)
Radeon R4 (Beema)
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics
Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics

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 74 votes

Rate Radeon R4 (Beema) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 137 votes

Rate Graphics Media Accelerator (GMA) HD Graphics 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.