MX150 vs GTX 960M

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

GTX 960M
8.77
+49.1%

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 49% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

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

Place in performance ranking454553
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money1.411.25
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameN16P-GXN17S-G1
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date12 March 2015 (9 years old)16 May 2017 (6 years old)
Current price$799 $1049
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GTX 960M has 13% 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 cores640384
CUDA cores640no data
Core clock speed1096 MHz1468 MHz
Boost clock speed1202 MHz1532 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)75 Watt25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate47.0424.91
Floating-point performance1,505 gflops1,127 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on GeForce GTX 960M and GeForce MX150 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 sizemedium sizedlarge
Bus supportPCI Express 3.0no data
InterfaceMXM-B (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsno dataNone
SLI options+no 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 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed2500 MHz6008 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s40.1 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
VGA аnalog display support+no data
DisplayPort Multimode (DP++) support+no data
HDMI+no data

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

GameStream+no data
GeForce ShadowPlay+no data
GPU Boost2.0no data
GameWorks+no data
H.264, VC1, MPEG2 1080p video decoder+no data
Optimus+no data
BatteryBoost+no data
Ansel+no data

API support

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

DirectX12 (11_0)12 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.1.1261.2.131
CUDA+6.1

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.

GTX 960M 8.77
+49.1%
GeForce MX150 5.88

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 49% 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%

GTX 960M 3400
+49.2%
GeForce MX150 2279

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 49% in Passmark.

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%

GTX 960M 5278
+17.4%
GeForce MX150 4494

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 17% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 960M 4318
+23.8%
GeForce MX150 3488

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 24% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

GTX 960M 30086
+57.3%
GeForce MX150 19132

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 57% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 9%

GTX 960M 10651
+13.5%
GeForce MX150 9386

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 13% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

GTX 960M 226308
+1.1%
GeForce MX150 223740

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 1% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 5%

GTX 960M 8898
+11.4%
GeForce MX150 7991

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 11% in GeekBench 5 Vulkan.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 960M 11818
+20.6%
GeForce MX150 9799

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 21% in GeekBench 5 CUDA.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

GTX 960M 56
+34.3%
GeForce MX150 42

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 34% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 960M 15
GeForce MX150 26
+70.1%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 70% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 960M 6
GeForce MX150 24
+294%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 294% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 960M 2
GeForce MX150 3
+82.4%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 82% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 960M 16
GeForce MX150 17
+7%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 7% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 960M 35
+209%
GeForce MX150 11

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 209% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 960M 2
GeForce MX150 10
+329%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 329% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 960M 16
+11.5%
GeForce MX150 14

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 12% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

GTX 960M 18
+3480%
GeForce MX150 1

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 3480% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

GTX 960M 16
+11.5%
GeForce MX150 14

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 12% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

GTX 960M 15
GeForce MX150 26
+70.1%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 70% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

GTX 960M 16
GeForce MX150 17
+7%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 7% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

GTX 960M 6
GeForce MX150 24
+294%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 294% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

GTX 960M 2
GeForce MX150 3
+82.4%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 82% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

GTX 960M 35
+209%
GeForce MX150 11

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 209% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

GTX 960M 2
GeForce MX150 10
+329%

MX150 outperforms GTX 960M by 329% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

GTX 960M 17.9
+3480%
GeForce MX150 0.5

GTX 960M outperforms MX150 by 3480% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.

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:

900p95
+58.3%
60−65
−58.3%
Full HD36
+33.3%
27
−33.3%
1440p15
−60%
24
+60%
4K13
−46.2%
19
+46.2%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 25
+31.6%
19
−31.6%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Battlefield 5 38
−2.6%
39
+2.6%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+9.1%
22
−9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+27.3%
11
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 28
+64.7%
17
−64.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 27
+50%
18
−50%
Forza Horizon 4 35
+40%
25
−40%
Hitman 3 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+50%
12
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+7.1%
14
−7.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 24
+41.2%
17
−41.2%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+7.1%
14
−7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
+46.2%
13
−46.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Battlefield 5 31
−3.2%
32
+3.2%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+243%
7
−243%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7
−100%
Far Cry 5 25
+56.3%
16
−56.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 25
+47.1%
17
−47.1%
Forza Horizon 4 31
+47.6%
21
−47.6%
Hitman 3 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+63.6%
10−12
−63.6%
Metro Exodus 12
+100%
6
−100%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14−16
+36.4%
10−12
−36.4%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 19
+72.7%
11
−72.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 24
+26.3%
19
−26.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+36.4%
11
−36.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 11
+57.1%
7
−57.1%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Battlefield 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Far Cry 5 23
+64.3%
14
−64.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 23
+53.3%
15
−53.3%
Forza Horizon 4 25
+78.6%
14
−78.6%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+27.3%
11
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Hitman 3 14−16
+40%
10
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
+22.2%
9−10
−22.2%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8
+100%
4−5
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 17
+467%
3−4
−467%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 15
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn 15
+150%
6−7
−150%
Forza Horizon 4 18
+100%
9−10
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 10
+400%
2−3
−400%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 3
+200%
1−2
−200%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 7
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry New Dawn 6
−33.3%
8−9
+33.3%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+100%
5−6
−100%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how GTX 960M and GeForce MX150 compete in popular games:

900p resolution:

  • GTX 960M is 58.3% faster than GeForce MX150

1080p resolution:

  • GTX 960M is 33.3% faster than GeForce MX150

1440p resolution:

  • GeForce MX150 is 60% faster than GTX 960M

4K resolution:

  • GeForce MX150 is 46.2% faster than GTX 960M

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

  • in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 960M is 467% faster than the GeForce MX150.
  • in Far Cry New Dawn, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 33.3% faster than the GTX 960M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • GTX 960M is ahead in 61 test (92%)
  • GeForce MX150 is ahead in 3 tests (5%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 8.77 5.88
Recency 12 March 2015 16 May 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 75 Watt 25 Watt

The GeForce GTX 960M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.


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 GTX 960M
GeForce GTX 960M
NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150

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.


3.7 902 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce GTX 960M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1504 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce MX150 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.