GMA X4500 vs Radeon RX Vega 3

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking780not rated
Place by popularity85not in top-100
Power efficiency13.66no data
ArchitectureGCN 5.0 (2017−2020)Generation 5.0 (2008)
GPU code namePicassoEaglelake
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date6 January 2019 (5 years ago)1 June 2008 (16 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 cores19280
Core clock speed300 MHz533 MHz
Boost clock speed1001 MHzno data
Number of transistors4,940 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rate12.012.132
Floating-point processing power0.3844 TFLOPSno data
ROPs44
TMUs124

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).

InterfaceIGPPCIe 1.0 x16
Widthno dataIGP
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeSystem SharedSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory bus widthSystem SharedSystem Shared
Memory clock speedSystem SharedSystem Shared
Shared memory+no data

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 outputs

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)10.0
Shader Model6.44.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.2.131N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 January 2019 1 June 2008
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 13 Watt

RX Vega 3 has an age advantage of 10 years, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

GMA X4500, on the other hand, has 15.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 3 and GMA X4500. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Radeon RX Vega 3 is a notebook card while GMA X4500 is a desktop 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 RX Vega 3
Radeon RX Vega 3
Intel GMA X4500
GMA X4500

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.


3.5 1990 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 340 votes

Rate GMA X4500 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.