gma950 vs X3100

Will I notice a huge difference in functionality using vista if I have gma950 or the x3100 graphics chipset? I know the x3100 is based on santa rosa and its much newer but is it that much better? The system is a fujitsu or lenovo tablet I am just stuck on whether to get the gma950 models with longer battery life or the x3100 models with 65 to 75% of the battery life.

1 answer Last reply
More about gma950 x3100
  1. The X3100 has programmable shaders and is supposed to support DirectX 10. If you want to do any sort of gaming, the X3100 is a much better choice. The Mac Mini I am typing this on has a GMA950 which is completely useless for games in Mac OSX or Windows XP. That's odd about the battery life between the two. Santa Rosa should have better battery life than Napa because the chipset is 90nm vs 130nm. Santa Rosa also introduces FSB Speedstep. At idle loads the FSB is reduced from 800Mhz to 400MHz. Early reviews confirmed that idle power is lower on Santa Rosa. It is probably other peripherals that are making up the difference, such as the LCD, hard drive, etc.

Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Windows Vista Graphics