MX250 vs MX150

Buy
VS
Buy
Price now 1049$
Games supported 65%
NVIDIA GeForce MX150
NVIDIA GeForce MX150
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 3.0 x16
  • Core clock speed 1468
  • Max video memory 4096
  • Memory type GDDR5
  • Memory clock speed 6008
  • Maximum resolution
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
NVIDIA GeForce MX250
Buy
  • Interface PCIe 3.0 x4
  • Core clock speed 1518
  • Max video memory 4 GB
  • Memory type GDDR5
  • Memory clock speed 7000
  • Maximum resolution
Price now 1165$
Games supported 66%

General info

Comparison of graphics card architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters.

Place in performance rating483469
Place by popularity87no data
Value for money1.502.35
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameN17S-G1N17S-G2
Market segmentLaptopLaptop
Release date16 May 2017
(5 years old)
20 February 2019
(3 years old)
Current price$1049 $1165
Value for money

To calculate the index we compare the characteristics of graphics cards against their prices.

  • 0
  • 50
  • 100
  • 0
  • 50
  • 100

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 MHz1518 MHz
Boost clock speed1532 MHz1582 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Thermal design power (TDP)25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)10/25 Watt
Texture fill rate24.9124.91
Floating-point performance1,127 gflopsno data

Compatibility, dimensions and requirements

Information on GeForce MX150 and GeForce MX250 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
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x4
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

Memory

Parameters of memory installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Note that GPUs integrated into processors have no dedicated VRAM and use a shared part of system RAM.

Memory typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed6008 MHz7000 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s48.06 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

API support

APIs supported, including particular versions of those APIs.

DirectX12 (12_1)12 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan1.2.1311.2
CUDA6.16.1

Benchmark performance

Non-gaming benchmark performance comparison. Note that overall benchmark performance is measured in points in 0-100 range.


Overall score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. 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 5.84
GeForce MX250 6.31
+8%
  • Passmark
  • 3DMark Vantage Performance
  • 3DMark 11 Performance GPU
  • 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU
  • 3DMark Fire Strike Score
  • 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
  • GeekBench 5 OpenCL
  • 3DMark Ice Storm GPU
  • GeekBench 5 Vulkan
  • GeekBench 5 CUDA
  • Unigine Heaven 3.0

Passmark

This is probably the most ubiquitous benchmark, part of Passmark PerformanceTest suite. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various 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 2293
GeForce MX250 2480
+8.2%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 8% 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: 16%

GeForce MX150 10992
GeForce MX250 16488
+50%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 50% 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: 16%

GeForce MX150 4494
GeForce MX250 4633
+3.1%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 3% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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: 13%

GeForce MX150 19132
GeForce MX250 21545
+12.6%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 13% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Fire Strike Score

Benchmark coverage: 13%

GeForce MX150 3104
GeForce MX250 3245
+4.5%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 5% in 3DMark Fire Strike Score.

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 seemingly made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic enough graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

GeForce MX150 3488
GeForce MX250 3660
+4.9%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 5% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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%

GeForce MX150 10156
GeForce MX250 10178
+0.2%

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%

GeForce MX150 223740
GeForce MX250 235421
+5.2%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 5% 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%

GeForce MX150 9620
GeForce MX250 9818
+2.1%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 2% 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: 5%

GeForce MX150 9799
+0.7%
GeForce MX250 9734

GeForce MX150 outperforms GeForce MX250 by 1% 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%

GeForce MX150 42
GeForce MX250 44
+4.3%

GeForce MX250 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 4% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

Gaming performance

Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.

Average FPS

Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:

Full HD27
+12.5%
24
−12.5%
1440p24no data
4K18no data

Popular games

  • Full HD
    Low Preset
  • Full HD
    Medium Preset
  • Full HD
    High Preset
  • Full HD
    Ultra Preset
  • 1440p
    High Preset
  • 1440p
    Ultra Preset
  • 4K
    High Preset
  • 4K
    Ultra Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−40%
14
+40%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
+0%
19
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−225%
13
+225%
Battlefield 5 39
+62.5%
24
−62.5%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 22
−4.5%
23
+4.5%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
+0%
11
+0%
Far Cry 5 17
−11.8%
19
+11.8%
Far Cry New Dawn 18
−16.7%
21
+16.7%
Forza Horizon 4 25
−24%
31
+24%
Hitman 3 10−11
−20%
12−14
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12
−8.3%
13
+8.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2 14
+0%
14
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 17
−5.9%
18
+5.9%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14
+75%
8−9
−75%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 13
+0%
13
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Battlefield 5 32
+68.4%
19
−68.4%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 7
−129%
16
+129%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
−57.1%
10−12
+57.1%
Far Cry 5 16
−6.3%
17
+6.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 17
−5.9%
18
+5.9%
Forza Horizon 4 21
−14.3%
24
+14.3%
Hitman 3 10−11
+42.9%
7
−42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+33.3%
6
−33.3%
Metro Exodus 6
−16.7%
7
+16.7%
Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
+25%
8
−25%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 11
+0%
11
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 19
−10.5%
21
+10.5%
Watch Dogs: Legion 11
+37.5%
8−9
−37.5%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
+0%
7
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Battlefield 5 26
+85.7%
14
−85.7%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−10%
10−12
+10%
Far Cry 5 14
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 15
−13.3%
17
+13.3%
Forza Horizon 4 14
−14.3%
16
+14.3%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−9.1%
12
+9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Hitman 3 10
+25%
8−9
−25%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Metro Exodus 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Battlefield 5 4−5
−50%
6−7
+50%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−14.3%
8−9
+14.3%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 9−10
−11.1%
10−11
+11.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Hitman 3 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Horizon Zero Dawn 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 3−4
−33.3%
4−5
+33.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 4−5
−25%
5−6
+25%
Assassin's Creed Odyssey 2−3
−50%
3−4
+50%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
Battlefield 5 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Far Cry 5 5−6
−20%
6−7
+20%
Far Cry New Dawn 8−9
−12.5%
9−10
+12.5%
Forza Horizon 4 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance rating 5.84 6.31
Recency 16 May 2017 20 February 2019
Memory bandwidth 40.1 48.06
Thermal design power (TDP) 25 Watt 10 Watt

Technical City couldn't decide between

NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150

and

NVIDIA GeForce MX250
GeForce MX250

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.

Cast your vote

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


Competitors of GeForce MX150 by AMD

According to our data, the nearest equivalent to GeForce MX150 by AMD is Radeon HD 6970M, which is slower by 1% and lower by 2 positions in our rating.

AMD Radeon HD 6970M Radeon HD 6970M
Compare

Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce MX150:

Competitors of GeForce MX250 by AMD

The nearest GeForce MX250's AMD equivalent is Radeon R9 M390, which is faster by 3% and higher by 14 positions in our performance rating.

AMD Radeon R9 M390 Radeon R9 M390
Compare

Here are some closest AMD rivals to GeForce MX250:

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User rating

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


3.7 998 ratings

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 1171 rating

Rate NVIDIA GeForce MX250 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.