Radeon HD 7640G vs GeForce MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 and Radeon HD 7640G, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
MX150 outperforms HD 7640G by a whopping 394% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 600 | 1067 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 40.58 | 2.35 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | TeraScale 3 (2010−2013) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | Devastator Lite |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 15 May 2012 (12 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 | 256 |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz | 496 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 685 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 1,303 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 10.96 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 0.3507 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 8 |
| TMUs | 24 | 16 |
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 | medium sized |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | no data |
| 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 | No outputs |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
+420%
| 5−6
−420%
|
| 1440p | 28
+460%
| 5−6
−460%
|
| 4K | 20
+400%
| 4−5
−400%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
+500%
|
3−4
−500%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Valorant | 24
+500%
|
4−5
−500%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
| Dota 2 | 40 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+320%
|
10−11
−320%
|
| Fortnite | 29
+480%
|
5−6
−480%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+250%
|
6−7
−250%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
+331%
|
12−14
−331%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+183%
|
6−7
−183%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+214%
|
7−8
−214%
|
| Valorant | 17
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| World of Tanks | 87
+235%
|
24−27
−235%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
+200%
|
4−5
−200%
|
| Dota 2 | 62 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+160%
|
10−11
−160%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 19
+46.2%
|
12−14
−46.2%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
+533%
|
3−4
−533%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 43
+514%
|
7−8
−514%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 55
+817%
|
6−7
−817%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+140%
|
5−6
−140%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
+125%
|
4−5
−125%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+167%
|
6−7
−167%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+6.3%
|
16−18
−6.3%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
+600%
|
3−4
−600%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+13.3%
|
14−16
−13.3%
|
| World of Tanks | 30
+400%
|
6−7
−400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
+50%
|
16−18
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
This is how GeForce MX150 and HD 7640G compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 420% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX150 is 460% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX150 is 400% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 2000% faster.
- in Cyberpunk 2077, with 1080p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 7640G is 33% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is ahead in 35 tests (95%)
- HD 7640G is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (3%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.83 | 1.18 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 15 May 2012 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 35 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has a 394.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 7640G in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
