GMA 950 vs Radeon RX Vega 56

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking150not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation25.90no data
ArchitectureVega (2017−2020)Generation 3.5 (2005)
GPU code nameVegaLakeport
Market segmentDesktopDesktop
Release date14 August 2017 (7 years ago)1 May 2005 (19 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$399 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 cores3584no data
Core clock speed1138 MHz166 MHz
Boost clock speed1474 MHzno data
Number of transistors12,500 millionno data
Manufacturing process technology14 nm90 nm
Power consumption (TDP)210 Watt7 Watt
Texture fill rate329.50.66
Floating-point processing power10.54 gflopsno 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).

InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 1.0 x16
Length267 mmno data
Width2-slotIGP
Supplementary power connectors2x 8-pinno 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 typeHBM2System Shared
Maximum RAM amount8 GBSystem Shared
Memory bus width409.6 BitSystem Shared
Memory clock speed800 MHzSystem Shared
Memory bandwidth409.6 GB/sno data
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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
HDMI+-

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)9.0c
Shader Model6.43.0
OpenGL4.62.0
OpenCL2.0N/A
Vulkan1.1.125N/A

Pros & cons summary


Recency 14 August 2017 1 May 2005
Chip lithography 14 nm 90 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 210 Watt 7 Watt

RX Vega 56 has an age advantage of 12 years, and a 542.9% more advanced lithography process.

GMA 950, on the other hand, has 2900% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Radeon RX Vega 56 and GMA 950. 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 56
Radeon RX Vega 56
Intel GMA 950
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.


4.3 750 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 56 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.8 133 votes

Rate 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.