GeForce G 205M vs Go 6150

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking1561not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Architectureno dataG9x (2007−2010)
GPU code nameC51MVMCP79MX
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date1 February 2006 (20 years ago)1 January 2010 (16 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. Real power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially if overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores316
Core clock speed1 MHz450 MHz
Boost clock speed425 MHzno data
Manufacturing process technology110 nm65 nm

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 typeshared Memoryno data
Shared memory++

API and SDK support

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

DirectXshared Memory10

Pros & cons summary


Recency 1 February 2006 1 January 2010
Chip lithography 110 nm 65 nm

G 205M has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 69% more advanced lithography process.

We couldn't decide between GeForce Go 6150 and GeForce G 205M. We've got no test results to judge.

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.


1.7 11 votes

Rate GeForce Go 6150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.1 101 votes

Rate GeForce G 205M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about GeForce Go 6150 or GeForce G 205M, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report errors or inaccuracies on the site.