T1000 8 GB vs GeForce MX150

Place in performance ranking	557	266
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	1.13	6.68
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Turing (2018−2021)
GPU code name	N17S-G1	TU117
Market segment	Laptop	Desktop
Release date	16 May 2017 (7 years ago)	6 May 2021 (3 years ago)
Current price	$1049	$690

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

T1000 8 GB has 491% better value for money than GeForce MX150.

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	896
Core clock speed	1468 MHz	no data
Boost clock speed	1532 MHz	1395 MHz
Number of transistors	1,800 million	4,700 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)	50 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.91	78.12
Floating-point performance	1,127 gflops	no data

Form factor & compatibility

Information on GeForce MX150 and T1000 8 GB 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 3.0 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	GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	6008 MHz	10 GB/s
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	160.0 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

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (12_1)
Shader Model	6.4	6.6
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	3.0
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.2
CUDA	6.1	7.5

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

T1000 8 GB 19.70
+234%

T1000 8 GB outperforms GeForce MX150 by 234% 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

T1000 8 GB 7608
+234%

T1000 8 GB outperforms GeForce MX150 by 234% 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	28 −221%	90−95 +221%
1440p	30 −233%	100−110 +233%
4K	21 −233%	70−75 +233%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

2−3
−400%

10−11

+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	5−6 −280%	19 +280%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Battlefield 5	7−8 −271%	26 +271%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	6−7 −250%	21 +250%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 −267%	11 +267%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −300%	20 +300%
Far Cry New Dawn	7−8 −243%	24 +243%
Forza Horizon 4	7−8 −257%	25 +257%
Hitman 3	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	10−11 −260%	36 +260%
Metro Exodus	6−7 −283%	23 +283%
Red Dead Redemption 2	8−9 −238%	27 +238%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	8−9 −238%	27 +238%
Watch Dogs: Legion	4−5 −250%	14 +250%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	3−4 −333%	13 +333%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Battlefield 5	5−6 −260%	18 +260%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −250%	7 +250%
Far Cry 5	5−6 −260%	18 +260%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −350%	9 +350%
Forza Horizon 4	21−24 −238%	71 +238%
Hitman 3	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Horizon Zero Dawn	27−30 −270%	100 +270%
Metro Exodus	5−6 −240%	17 +240%
Red Dead Redemption 2	5−6 −300%	20 +300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	6−7 −250%	21 +250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 −280%	19 +280%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −257%	24−27 +257%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	2−3 −250%	7 +250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	3−4 −300%	12−14 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Far Cry 5	3−4 −300%	12 +300%
Forza Horizon 4	4−5 −250%	14 +250%
Horizon Zero Dawn	4−5 −300%	16 +300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	4−5 −300%	16 +300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	3−4 −267%	11 +267%
Watch Dogs: Legion	7−8 −257%	24−27 +257%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

4−5
−300%

16−18

+300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	3−4 −267%	10−12 +267%
Far Cry New Dawn	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	1−2
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3 −300%	8−9 +300%
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	3−4
Far Cry 5	2−3 −350%	9−10 +350%
Forza Horizon 4	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Hitman 3	2−3 −400%	10−11 +400%
Horizon Zero Dawn	3−4 −333%	12−14 +333%
Metro Exodus	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	1−2
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	3−4

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

2−3
−400%

10−11

+400%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 −400%	5−6 +400%
Far Cry New Dawn	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Hitman 3	0−1	2−3
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	2−3
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	0−1	2−3

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	1−2 −300%	4−5 +300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	0−1	2−3
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	0−1	2−3
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	0−1	3−4
Forza Horizon 4	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Horizon Zero Dawn	1−2 −500%	6−7 +500%
Metro Exodus	2−3 −250%	7−8 +250%
Watch Dogs: Legion	0−1	2−3

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

1−2

−500%

6−7
+500%

This is how GeForce MX150 and T1000 8 GB compete in popular games:

T1000 8 GB is 221% faster in 1080p
T1000 8 GB is 233% faster in 1440p
T1000 8 GB is 233% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.90	19.70
Recency	16 May 2017	6 May 2021
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	8 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	12 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	50 Watt