GeForce GT 220 vs MX150

Place in performance ranking	555	1173
Place by popularity	92	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.18	no data
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	N17S-G1	GT216
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	16 May 2017 (7 years ago)	12 October 2009 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$79.99
Current price	$1049	$121 (1.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX150 and GT 220 have a nearly equal value for money.

Detailed specifications

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 cores	384	48
CUDA cores	no data	48
Core clock speed	1468 MHz	625 MHz
Boost clock speed	1532 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,800 million	486 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)	58 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	24.91	9.840
Floating-point performance	1,127 gflops	144 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce MX150 and GeForce GT 220 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 size	large	no data
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	6.6" (16.8 cm)
Height	no data	4.376" (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	1-slot
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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	6008 MHz	790 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	25.3 GB/s
Shared memory	-	no data

Connectivity and outputs

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 Connectors	No outputs	VGADVIHDMI
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	no data	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF + HDA

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.4	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	3.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
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.

GeForce MX150 5.89
+952%

GT 220 0.56

MX150 outperforms GT 220 by 952% based on our aggregated 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
+960%

GT 220 215

MX150 outperforms GT 220 by 960% in Passmark.

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 +28.6%	21 −28.6%
1440p	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
4K	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11
+233%

3−4

−233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +1800%	1−2 −1800%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Battlefield 5	39 +1200%	3−4 −1200%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	22 +175%	8−9 −175%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Far Cry New Dawn	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Forza Horizon 4	25 +1150%	2−3 −1150%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Red Dead Redemption 2	14 +600%	2−3 −600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	17 +183%	6−7 −183%
Watch Dogs: Legion	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	13 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Battlefield 5	32 +967%	3−4 −967%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	7 −14.3%	8−9 +14.3%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Far Cry New Dawn	17 +1600%	1−2 −1600%
Forza Horizon 4	21 +2000%	1−2 −2000%
Hitman 3	14−16 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Metro Exodus	6 +500%	1−2 −500%
Red Dead Redemption 2	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	11 +83.3%	6−7 −83.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	19 +533%	3−4 −533%
Watch Dogs: Legion	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	6−7	0−1
Battlefield 5	26 +1200%	2−3 −1200%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry 5	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Far Cry New Dawn	15 +1400%	1−2 −1400%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
Watch Dogs: Legion	8−9	0−1

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	9−10 +350%	2−3 −350%
Hitman 3	10 +233%	3−4 −233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +50%	8−9 −50%
Metro Exodus	4−5	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	4−5	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	0−1
Battlefield 5	3−4	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	6−7	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	8−9	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Hitman 3	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	3−4	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	2−3	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Battlefield 5	1−2	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	5−6 +66.7%	3−4 −66.7%
Far Cry New Dawn	8−9 +60%	5−6 −60%
Forza Horizon 4	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	1−2	0−1

This is how GeForce MX150 and GT 220 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is 29% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX150 is 1100% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX150 is 1800% faster in 4K

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

in Far Cry 5, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 800% faster than the GT 220.
in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GT 220 is 14% faster than the GeForce MX150.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is ahead in 23 tests (92%)
GT 220 is ahead in 1 test (4%)
there's a draw in 1 test (4%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.89	0.56
Recency	16 May 2017	12 October 2009
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	58 Watt