GeForce GTX 260 vs MX150

Place in the ranking	592	751
Place by popularity	99	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.16
Power efficiency	40.42	1.19
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013)
GPU code name	GP108	GT200
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	17 May 2017 (7 years ago)	16 June 2008 (16 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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	192
Core clock speed	937 MHz	576 MHz
Boost clock speed	1038 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,800 million	1,400 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	182 Watt
Maximum GPU temperature	no data	105 °C
Texture fill rate	24.91	36.86
Floating-point processing power	0.7972 TFLOPS	0.4769 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	28
TMUs	24	64

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 2.0 x16
Length	no data	267 mm
Height	no data	4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm)
Width	no data	2-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	2x 6-pin
SLI options	-	+

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	896 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	448 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	999 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	111.9 GB/s
Shared memory	-	-

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	Dual Link DVIHDTV
Multi monitor support	no data	+
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	+

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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
+87%

GTX 260 3.15

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.

GeForce MX150 2269
+86.7%

GTX 260 1215

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	26 +117%	12−14 −117%
1440p	30 +87.5%	16−18 −87.5%
4K	20 +100%	10−12 −100%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	37.42
1440p	no data	28.06
4K	no data	44.90

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11

+100%

5−6
−100%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +90%	10−11 −90%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Battlefield 5	26 +117%	12−14 −117%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +120%	5−6 −120%
Far Cry 5	20 +100%	10−11 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +100%	12−14 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +100%	40−45 −100%
Hitman 3	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +100%	50−55 −100%
Metro Exodus	23 +91.7%	12−14 −91.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +92.9%	14−16 −92.9%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +100%	18−20 −100%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +108%	24−27 −108%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Battlefield 5	18 +100%	9−10 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	18 +100%	9−10 −100%
Far Cry New Dawn	9 +125%	4−5 −125%
Forza Horizon 4	71 +103%	35−40 −103%
Hitman 3	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +100%	50−55 −100%
Metro Exodus	17 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +100%	8−9 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21 +110%	10−11 −110%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +92.6%	27−30 −92.6%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +108%	24−27 −108%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Far Cry 5	12 +100%	6−7 −100%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +100%	7−8 −100%
Hitman 3	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +100%	8−9 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +100%	8−9 −100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +120%	5−6 −120%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +108%	24−27 −108%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+100%

8−9
−100%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +120%	5−6 −120%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +125%	4−5 −125%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +133%	3−4 −133%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +88.9%	9−10 −88.9%
Hitman 3	10−11 +100%	5−6 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +117%	6−7 −117%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +111%	18−20 −111%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11

+100%

5−6
−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +150%	2−3 −150%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Hitman 3	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +100%	8−9 −100%
Metro Exodus	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +100%	2−3 −100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +100%	3−4 −100%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3 +100%	1−2 −100%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+100%

3−4

−100%

This is how GeForce MX150 and GTX 260 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is 117% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX150 is 88% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX150 is 100% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.89	3.15
Recency	17 May 2017	16 June 2008
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	896 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	182 Watt

GeForce MX150 has a 87% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 1720% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook card while GeForce GTX 260 is a desktop one.

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