Radeon HD 2600 XT vs GeForce MX150

Place in performance ranking	560	1127
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.09	no data
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	TeraScale (2005−2013)
GPU code name	N17S-G1	RV630
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	16 May 2017 (7 years ago)	28 June 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

GeForce MX150 and ATI HD 2600 XT 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	120
Core clock speed	1468 MHz	800 MHz
Boost clock speed	1532 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,800 million	390 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.91	6.400
Floating-point performance	1,127 gflops	192 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce MX150 and Radeon HD 2600 XT 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
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 1.0 x16
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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	256 MB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	6008 MHz	1400 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	22.4 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

2x DVI, 1x S-Video

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	10.0 (10_0)
Shader Model	6.4	4.0
OpenGL	4.6	3.3
OpenCL	1.2	N/A
Vulkan	1.2.131	N/A
CUDA	6.1	no data

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 5.90
+708%

ATI HD 2600 XT 0.73

GeForce MX150 outperforms Radeon HD 2600 XT by 708% based on our aggregate 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
+708%

ATI HD 2600 XT 282

GeForce MX150 outperforms Radeon HD 2600 XT by 708% 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 +800%	3−4 −800%
1440p	27 +800%	3−4 −800%
4K	20 +900%	2−3 −900%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11
+900%

1−2

−900%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +850%	2−3 −850%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8	0−1
Battlefield 5	26 +767%	3−4 −767%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry 5	20 +900%	2−3 −900%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +789%	9−10 −789%
Hitman 3	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +733%	12−14 −733%
Metro Exodus	23 +1050%	2−3 −1050%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +800%	3−4 −800%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +800%	4−5 −800%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +733%	6−7 −733%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8	0−1
Battlefield 5	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	7	0−1
Far Cry 5	18 +800%	2−3 −800%
Far Cry New Dawn	9 +800%	1−2 −800%
Forza Horizon 4	71 +788%	8−9 −788%
Hitman 3	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +733%	12−14 −733%
Metro Exodus	17 +750%	2−3 −750%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21 +950%	2−3 −950%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +767%	6−7 −767%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +733%	6−7 −733%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Far Cry 5	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +1300%	1−2 −1300%
Hitman 3	12−14 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +733%	6−7 −733%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18
+1500%

1−2

−1500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7	0−1
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4	0−1
Far Cry 5	7−8	0−1
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +750%	2−3 −750%
Hitman 3	10−11 +900%	1−2 −900%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +1200%	1−2 −1200%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +850%	4−5 −850%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+900%

1−2

−900%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

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

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7

0−1

This is how GeForce MX150 and ATI HD 2600 XT compete in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is 800% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX150 is 800% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX150 is 900% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.90	0.73
Recency	16 May 2017	28 June 2007
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	256 MB
Chip lithography	14 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	45 Watt

GeForce MX150 has a 708.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 1500% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 364.3% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 2600 XT in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook card while Radeon HD 2600 XT is a desktop one.

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