GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB vs MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 with GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB, including specs and performance data.
1060 5 GB outperforms MX150 by a whopping 308% 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 | 657 | 288 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 41.41 | 14.07 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | GP106 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (8 years ago) | 26 December 2017 (7 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. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 384 | 1280 |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz | 1506 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1709 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 4,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 120 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 136.7 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 4.375 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 40 |
| TMUs | 24 | 80 |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB | 480 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 1280 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 | large | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 250 mm |
| Width | no data | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 1x 6-pin |
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 | 5 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 160 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 2002 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 160.2 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 | 1x DVI, 1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPort |
| HDMI | - | + |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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.
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
−307%
| 110−120
+307%
|
| 1440p | 30
−300%
| 120−130
+300%
|
| 4K | 18
−289%
| 70−75
+289%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 39
−285%
|
150−160
+285%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 24
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 17
−282%
|
65−70
+282%
|
| Fortnite | 59
−307%
|
240−250
+307%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 25
−300%
|
100−105
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 26
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Valorant | 100
−300%
|
400−450
+300%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 32
−306%
|
130−140
+306%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 24−27
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 87
−302%
|
350−400
+302%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Dota 2 | 68
−297%
|
270−280
+297%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
−305%
|
85−90
+305%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 16
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| Fortnite | 34
−282%
|
130−140
+282%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
−305%
|
85−90
+305%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 14−16
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Metro Exodus | 6
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 22
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 19
−295%
|
75−80
+295%
|
| Valorant | 100
−300%
|
400−450
+300%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 26
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−12
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
−303%
|
250−260
+303%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
−305%
|
85−90
+305%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 14
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 15
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Valorant | 65−70
−300%
|
260−270
+300%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 24
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 10−12
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 55
−300%
|
220−230
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 43
−295%
|
170−180
+295%
|
| Valorant | 66
−294%
|
260−270
+294%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 12−14
−285%
|
50−55
+285%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−12
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30
−300%
|
120−130
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−306%
|
65−70
+306%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Valorant | 33
−294%
|
130−140
+294%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
−300%
|
4−5
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
This is how GeForce MX150 and GTX 1060 5 GB compete in popular games:
- GTX 1060 5 GB is 307% faster in 1080p
- GTX 1060 5 GB is 300% faster in 1440p
- GTX 1060 5 GB is 289% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.32 | 21.69 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 26 December 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 5 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 120 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1100% lower power consumption.
GTX 1060 5 GB, on the other hand, has a 307.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 months, and a 25% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce GTX 1060 5 GB is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
