GeForce MX150 vs Quadro K4200
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Quadro K4200 with GeForce MX150, including specs and performance data.
K4200 outperforms MX150 by an impressive 92% 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 | 488 | 673 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.95 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 7.44 | 41.77 |
| Architecture | Kepler (2012−2018) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GK104 | GP108 |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Release date | 22 July 2014 (12 years ago) | 17 May 2017 (9 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $854.99 | no data |
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 | 1344 | 384 |
| Core clock speed | 771 MHz | 937 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 784 MHz | 1038 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 3,540 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 10 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 87.81 | 24.91 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.107 TFLOPS | 0.7972 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 16 |
| TMUs | 112 | 24 |
| L1 Cache | 112 KB | 144 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 512 KB |
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 | no data | large |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 241 mm | no data |
| Width | 1-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1x 6-pin | 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 | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1350 MHz | 1253 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 172.8 GB/s | 40.1 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 | 1x DVI, 2x DisplayPort | No outputs |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | + | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 3.0 | 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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 Vulkan
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses Vulkan API by AMD & Khronos Group.
GeekBench 5 CUDA
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses CUDA API by NVIDIA.
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 | 50−55
+85.2%
| 27
−85.2%
|
| 1440p | 55−60
+83.3%
| 30
−83.3%
|
| 4K | 30−35
+66.7%
| 18
−66.7%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 17.10 | no data |
| 1440p | 15.55 | no data |
| 4K | 28.50 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Resident Evil 4 Remake | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 39
+0%
|
39
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 59
+0%
|
59
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
+0%
|
25
+0%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 32
+0%
|
32
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
+0%
|
24−27
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 87
+0%
|
87
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
+0%
|
68
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 34
+0%
|
34
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
+0%
|
6
+0%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
+0%
|
22
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Valorant | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
+0%
|
62
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 15
+0%
|
15
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+0%
|
60−65
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Palworld | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55
+0%
|
55
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 43
+0%
|
43
+0%
|
| Valorant | 66
+0%
|
66
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Palworld | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30
+0%
|
30
+0%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Valorant | 33
+0%
|
33
+0%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Palworld | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
This is how Quadro K4200 and GeForce MX150 compete in popular games:
- Quadro K4200 is 85% faster in 1080p
- Quadro K4200 is 83% faster in 1440p
- Quadro K4200 is 67% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 63 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.38 | 5.40 |
| Recency | 22 July 2014 | 17 May 2017 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 108 Watt | 10 Watt |
Quadro K4200 has a 92% higher aggregate performance score.
GeForce MX150, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 980% lower power consumption.
The Quadro K4200 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.
Be aware that Quadro K4200 is a workstation graphics card while GeForce MX150 is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
