GTX 485M vs MX150

#ad
Buy
VS

Combined performance score

GeForce MX150
5.88

GTX 485M outperforms MX150 by 4% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking553546
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money1.253.24
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code nameN17S-G1N12E-GTX-A1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date16 May 2017 (6 years old)6 January 2010 (14 years old)
Current price$1049 $163
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 485M has 159% better value for money than GeForce MX150.

Technical specs

General performance parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. These parameters indirectly speak of performance, but for precise assessment you have to consider their benchmark and gaming test results. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.

Pipelines / CUDA cores384384
Core clock speed1468 MHz1150 MHz
Boost clock speed1532 MHzno data
Number of transistors1,800 million1,950 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)100 Watt
Texture fill rate24.9136.8 billion/sec
Floating-point performance1,127 gflops883.2 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce MX150 and GeForce GTX 485M compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For notebook video cards it's notebook size, connection slot and bus, if the video card is inserted into a slot instead of being soldered to the notebook motherboard.

Laptop sizelargelarge
Bus supportno dataPCI-E 2.0
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16MXM-B (3.0)
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone
SLI optionsno data+

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB2 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed6008 MHz1500 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s96.0 GB/s
Shared memory--

Video outputs and ports

Types and number of video connectors present on the reviewed GPUs. As a rule, data in this section is precise only for desktop reference ones (so-called Founders Edition for NVIDIA chips). OEM manufacturers may change the number and type of output ports, while for notebook cards availability of certain video outputs ports depends on the laptop model rather than on the card itself.

Display ConnectorsNo outputsNo outputs
Maximum VGA resolutionno data2048x1536

API support

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (11_0)
Shader Model6.45.1
OpenGL4.64.5
OpenCL1.21.1
Vulkan1.2.131N/A
CUDA6.1+

Synthetic benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance score. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

GeForce MX150 5.88
GTX 485M 6.09
+3.6%

GTX 485M outperforms MX150 by 4% in our combined benchmark results.


Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. 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.

Benchmark coverage: 25%

GeForce MX150 2279
GTX 485M 2359
+3.5%

GTX 485M outperforms MX150 by 4% in Passmark.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GeForce MX150 10992
GTX 485M 13536
+23.1%

GTX 485M outperforms MX150 by 23% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

GeForce MX150 4494
+65.9%
GTX 485M 2709

MX150 outperforms GTX 485M by 66% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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:

900p45−50
−6.7%
48
+6.7%
Full HD27
−144%
66
+144%
1440p24
+0%
24−27
+0%
4K19
+5.6%
18−20
−5.6%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
+58.3%
12−14
−58.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Battlefield 5 39
+105%
18−20
−105%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 22
+22.2%
18−20
−22.2%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+10%
10−11
−10%
Far Cry 5 17
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 18
+20%
14−16
−20%
Forza Horizon 4 25
+25%
20−22
−25%
Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12
+0%
12−14
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14
+27.3%
10−12
−27.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
+21.4%
14−16
−21.4%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
+8.3%
12−14
−8.3%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Battlefield 5 32
+68.4%
18−20
−68.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7
−157%
18−20
+157%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
−42.9%
10−11
+42.9%
Far Cry 5 16
+14.3%
14−16
−14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
+13.3%
14−16
−13.3%
Forza Horizon 4 21
+5%
20−22
−5%
Hitman 3 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 10−12
−9.1%
12−14
+9.1%
Metro Exodus 6
−50%
9−10
+50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−12
+0%
10−12
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
−27.3%
14−16
+27.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
+46.2%
12−14
−46.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 11
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
−71.4%
12−14
+71.4%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Battlefield 5 26
+36.8%
18−20
−36.8%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Far Cry 5 14
+0%
14−16
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 15
+0%
14−16
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 14
−42.9%
20−22
+42.9%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−18.2%
12−14
+18.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Hitman 3 10
+0%
10−11
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Metro Exodus 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Far Cry 5 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Far Cry New Dawn 6−7
−16.7%
7−8
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Hitman 3 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 0−1 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Battlefield 5 1−2
−100%
2−3
+100%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%

This is how GeForce MX150 and GTX 485M compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • GTX 485M is 6.7% faster than GeForce MX150

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 485M is 144% faster than GeForce MX150

1440p resolution:

  • GTX 485M is 0% faster than GeForce MX150

4K resolution:

  • GeForce MX150 is 5.6% faster than GTX 485M

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 105% faster than the GTX 485M.
  • in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GTX 485M is 157% faster than the GeForce MX150.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GeForce MX150 is ahead in 18 tests (27%)
  • GTX 485M is ahead in 16 tests (24%)
  • there's a draw in 32 tests (48%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 5.88 6.09
Recency 16 May 2017 6 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 2 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 40 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 25 Watt 100 Watt

We couldn't decide between GeForce MX150 and GeForce GTX 485M. The differences in performance seem too small.


Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

User ratings

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 485M
GeForce GTX 485M

Similar GPU comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

User ratings: view and submit

Here you can see the user rating of the graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 1504 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce MX150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1 3 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 485M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.