GMA 3150 vs Radeon RX Vega 5

VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking6591536
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency21.25no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Generation 4.0 (2006−2007)
GPU code nameVegaPineview
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date7 January 2020 (5 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 cores32016
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed1400 MHzno data
Number of transistorsno data123 million
Manufacturing process technology7 nm45 nm
Power consumption (TDP)15 Watt13 Watt
Texture fill rateno data0.8
Floating-point processing powerno data0.0128 TFLOPS
ROPsno data1
TMUsno data2

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).

Interfaceno dataPCI

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 typeno dataSystem Shared
Maximum RAM amountno dataSystem Shared
Memory bus widthno dataSystem Shared
Memory clock speedno dataSystem Shared
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 dataNo outputs

API and SDK compatibility

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

DirectX12_19.0c
Shader Modelno data3.0
OpenGLno data2.0
OpenCLno dataN/A
Vulkan-N/A

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS across all PC games

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD19no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 7 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 9 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 no data
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 no data
Forza Horizon 4 21 no data
Forza Horizon 5 12 no data
Metro Exodus 10−12 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 18 no data
Valorant 18 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 no data
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 no data
Dota 2 21 no data
Far Cry 5 21 no data
Fortnite 27−30 no data
Forza Horizon 4 17 no data
Forza Horizon 5 8−9 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 13 no data
Metro Exodus 10−12 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 41 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 4 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14−16 no data
Valorant 12−14 no data
World of Tanks 50 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14−16 no data
Counter-Strike 2 12−14 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11 no data
Dota 2 37 no data
Far Cry 5 21−24 no data
Forza Horizon 4 14 no data
Forza Horizon 5 8−9 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 40−45 no data
Valorant 12−14 no data

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 4−5 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 4−5 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 30−35 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 no data
World of Tanks 30−35 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 7−8 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 no data
Far Cry 5 10−11 no data
Forza Horizon 4 7−8 no data
Forza Horizon 5 6−7 no data
Metro Exodus 3−4 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8 no data
Valorant 12−14 no data

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18 no data
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18 no data
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 12−14 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 4−5 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3 no data
Dota 2 16−18 no data
Far Cry 5 5−6 no data
Fortnite 4−5 no data
Forza Horizon 4 4−5 no data
Forza Horizon 5 2−3 no data
Valorant 4−5 no data

Pros & cons summary


Recency 7 January 2020 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 7 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 13 Watt

RX Vega 5 has an age advantage of 12 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 3150, on the other hand, has 15.4% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 5 and GMA 3150. 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 RX Vega 5
Radeon RX Vega 5
Intel GMA 3150
GMA 3150

Other comparisons

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.


4 218 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.5 142 votes

Rate GMA 3150 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.