Radeon X1050 vs GeForce MX150
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 560 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.09 | no data |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Rage 9 (2003−2008) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G1 | RV370 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 7 December 2006 (17 years ago) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1468 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1532 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 107 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP) | 24 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 1.600 |
| Floating-point performance | 1,127 gflops | no data |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on GeForce MX150 and Radeon X1050 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 | DDR2 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 666 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 5.328 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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 9.0 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.0 |
| 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.
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 outperforms Radeon X1050 by 4551% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 16 May 2017 | 7 December 2006 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 128 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 24 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has an age advantage of 10 years, a 3100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.
ATI X1050, on the other hand, has 4.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between GeForce MX150 and Radeon X1050. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook card while Radeon X1050 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
