GMA 3150 vs Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) and GMA 3150, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
2020
15 Watt
8.90
+88900%

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) outperforms GMA 3150 by a whopping 88900% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking4921535
Place by popularity32not in top-100
Power efficiency41.380.05
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 cores51216
Core clock speedno data400 MHz
Boost clock speed2100 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 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 HD23-0−1
1440p17-0−1
4K9-0−1

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 13 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 19 0−1

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 12 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 15 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 32 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 21 0−1
Metro Exodus 27 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 33 0−1
Valorant 44 0−1

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 9 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 11 0−1
Dota 2 29 0−1
Far Cry 5 30 0−1
Fortnite 50−55 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 27 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 13 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 19 0−1
Metro Exodus 19 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 57 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 12 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 0−1
Valorant 14 0−1
World of Tanks 48 0−1

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 27−30 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 8 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 9 0−1
Dota 2 48 0−1
Far Cry 5 35−40 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 23 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 14 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 70−75 0−1
Valorant 37 0−1

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 9 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 9 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 22 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 7−8 0−1
World of Tanks 21 0−1

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 16−18 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 2 0−1
Far Cry 5 18−20 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 16 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 12−14 0−1
Metro Exodus 17 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 12−14 0−1
Valorant 39 0−1

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Dota 2 10 0−1
Grand Theft Auto V 10 0−1
Metro Exodus 6 0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 13 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7 0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10 0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 8−9 0−1
Counter-Strike 2 6−7 0−1
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4 0−1
Dota 2 18 0−1
Far Cry 5 10−12 0−1
Fortnite 9−10 0−1
Forza Horizon 4 9 0−1
Forza Horizon 5 6−7 0−1
Valorant 9−10 0−1

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.90 0.01
Recency 7 January 2020 9 May 2007
Chip lithography 7 nm 45 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 15 Watt 13 Watt

RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) has a 88900% higher aggregate performance score, 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.

The Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) is our recommended choice as it beats the GMA 3150 in performance tests.


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 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000)
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.


3.8 1290 votes

Rate Radeon RX Vega 8 (Ryzen 4000/5000) on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
2.6 141 vote

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.