Radeon HD 8650M vs GeForce MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 and Radeon HD 8650M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX150 outperforms HD 8650M by a whopping 187% 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 | 674 | 968 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 41.70 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | GCN (2012−2015) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | no data |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (9 years ago) | 7 January 2013 (13 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 cores | 384 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz | 650 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 900 Million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7972 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 16 | no data |
| TMUs | 24 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | no 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).
| Laptop size | large | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no 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 type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 4500 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | no data |
| 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 outputs | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.
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 HD | 27
+200%
| 9−10
−200%
|
| 1440p | 30
+200%
| 10−12
−200%
|
| 4K | 18
+200%
| 6−7
−200%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+680%
|
5−6
−680%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
| Fortnite | 59
+638%
|
8−9
−638%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
+150%
|
10−11
−150%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
+136%
|
10−12
−136%
|
| Valorant | 100
+156%
|
35−40
−156%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 12−14
+160%
|
5−6
−160%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 32
+540%
|
5−6
−540%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+733%
|
3−4
−733%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 87
+123%
|
35−40
−123%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
+224%
|
21−24
−224%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+300%
|
4−5
−300%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+325%
|
8−9
−325%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
+275%
|
4−5
−275%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+767%
|
3−4
−767%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+100%
|
10−12
−100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+138%
|
8−9
−138%
|
| Valorant | 100
+156%
|
35−40
−156%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+175%
|
4−5
−175%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+195%
|
21−24
−195%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+250%
|
4−5
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
+40%
|
10−11
−40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 15
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+37.5%
|
8−9
−37.5%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+64.1%
|
35−40
−64.1%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24
+200%
|
8−9
−200%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+150%
|
4−5
−150%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55
+323%
|
12−14
−323%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 43
+126%
|
18−20
−126%
|
| Valorant | 66
+313%
|
16−18
−313%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+225%
|
4−5
−225%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+133%
|
3−4
−133%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+267%
|
3−4
−267%
|
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 4−5
+300%
|
1−2
−300%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30
+200%
|
10−11
−200%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+6.7%
|
14−16
−6.7%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 33
+230%
|
10−11
−230%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 24
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
This is how GeForce MX150 and HD 8650M compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 200% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX150 is 200% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX150 is 200% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Grand Theft Auto V, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 767% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, GeForce MX150 surpassed HD 8650M in all 52 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.39 | 1.88 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 7 January 2013 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
GeForce MX150 has a 187% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8650M in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
