GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon HD 7420G
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 7420G and GeForce GTS 150M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTS 150M outperforms HD 7420G by an impressive 61% 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 | 1234 | 1111 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 1.66 | 2.08 |
| Architecture | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Scrapper Lite | G94 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 6 June 2012 (14 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (17 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 | 128 | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 480 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 655 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,303 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 5.240 | 12.80 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.1677 TFLOPS | 0.128 TFLOPS |
| Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
| ROPs | 4 | 16 |
| TMUs | 8 | 32 |
| L2 Cache | no data | 64 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 | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 51 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 outputs | DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA |
| HDMI | - | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 11.2 (11_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | N/A | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
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 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−9.7%
|
30−35
+9.7%
|
Full HD
High
| Atomic Heart | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 21−24
−33.3%
|
27−30
+33.3%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−9.7%
|
30−35
+9.7%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Dota 2 | 12−14
−23.1%
|
16−18
+23.1%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 2−3 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6
−40%
|
7−8
+40%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−12.5%
|
9−10
+12.5%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6−7
−16.7%
|
7−8
+16.7%
|
| Valorant | 30−35
−9.7%
|
30−35
+9.7%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 4−5
−100%
|
8−9
+100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8−9
−62.5%
|
12−14
+62.5%
|
| Valorant | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Forza Horizon 4 | 2−3
−50%
|
3−4
+50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16
+0%
|
14−16
+0%
|
| Valorant | 6−7
−33.3%
|
8−9
+33.3%
|
4K
Ultra
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Atomic Heart | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Valorant, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the GTS 150M is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GTS 150M performs better in 28 tests (68%)
- there's a draw in 13 tests (32%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.75 | 1.21 |
| Recency | 6 June 2012 | 3 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 45 Watt |
HD 7420G has an age advantage of 3 years, a 103% more advanced lithography process, and 29% lower power consumption.
GTS 150M, on the other hand, has a 61% higher aggregate performance score.
The GeForce GTS 150M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7420G 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.
