GMA X3100 vs Radeon R7 250

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking803not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.10no data
Power efficiency2.89no data
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameOlandBroadwater
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date8 October 2013 (11 years ago)9 May 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$89 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores384no data
Core clock speedno data500 MHz
Boost clock speed1050 MHzno data
Number of transistors950 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology28 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate25.204.000
Floating-point processing power0.8064 TFLOPSno data
ROPs81
TMUs248

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).

Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x8PCIe 1.0 x16
Length168 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectorsN/Ano 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 typeGDDR5System Shared
Maximum RAM amount2 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width128 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed1150 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth72 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 Connectors1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x VGANo outputs
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

AppAcceleration+-
CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 129.0c
Shader Model5.13.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL1.2N/A
Vulkan-N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 8 October 2013 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 28 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 13 Watt

R7 250 has an age advantage of 6 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.

GMA X3100, on the other hand, has 476.9% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon R7 250 and GMA X3100. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon R7 250 is a desktop card while GMA X3100 is a notebook 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.


AMD Radeon R7 250
Radeon R7 250
Intel GMA X3100
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.


3.6 440 votes

Rate Radeon R7 250 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.9 58 votes

Rate 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.