ATI Radeon X1600 PRO vs GeForce 7150M
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce 7150M with Radeon X1600 PRO, including specs and performance data.
X1600 PRO outperforms 7150M by a whopping 500% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1565 | 1453 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | no data | 0.45 |
| Architecture | no data | R500 (2005−2007) |
| GPU code name | C67 | RV530 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 1 February 2006 (20 years ago) | 1 October 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 3 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 425 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | no data | 157 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 90 nm | 90 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 41 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | no data | 2.000 |
| ROPs | no data | 4 |
| TMUs | no data | 4 |
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).
| Interface | no data | PCIe 1.0 x16 |
| Width | no data | 1-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | no data | None |
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 type | shared Memory | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | no data | 256 MB |
| Memory bus width | no data | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 390 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 12.48 GB/s |
| Shared memory | + | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | no data | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | shared Memory | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | no data | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | no data | 2.0 |
| OpenCL | no data | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−477%
|
150−160
+477%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10
−456%
|
50−55
+456%
|
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−477%
|
150−160
+477%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−500%
|
12−14
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 7−8
−471%
|
40−45
+471%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
−500%
|
30−33
+500%
|
| Valorant | 24−27
−477%
|
150−160
+477%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
−471%
|
80−85
+471%
|
| Valorant | 4−5
−500%
|
24−27
+500%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−500%
|
6−7
+500%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.04 | 0.24 |
| Recency | 1 February 2006 | 1 October 2007 |
ATI X1600 PRO has a 500% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.
The Radeon X1600 PRO is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 7150M in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce 7150M is a notebook graphics card while Radeon X1600 PRO is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
