GeForce MX150 vs Quadro M2000M

#ad
Buy
VS
#ad
Buy

Combined performance score

M2000M
8.93
+51.9%

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 52% in our combined benchmark results.

General info

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in performance ranking449553
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money2.311.25
ArchitectureMaxwell (2014−2018)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code nameGM107N17S-G1
Market segmentMobile workstationLaptop
Release date2 October 2015 (8 years old)16 May 2017 (6 years old)
Current price$363 $1049
Value for money

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

M2000M has 85% better value for money than GeForce MX150.

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 cores640384
Core clock speed1038 MHz1468 MHz
Boost clock speed1197 MHz1532 MHz
Number of transistors1,870 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)55 Watt25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate43.9224.91
Floating-point performance1,405 gflops1,127 gflops

Size and compatibility

Information on Quadro M2000M and GeForce MX150 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
InterfaceMXM-A (3.0)PCIe 3.0 x16
Supplementary power connectorsNoneNone

Memory

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width128 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed5000 MHz6008 MHz
Memory bandwidth80 GB/s40.1 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
Display Port1.2no data

Technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

Optimus+no data
3D Vision Pro+no data
Mosaic+no data
nView Display Management+no data
Optimus+no data

API support

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

DirectX1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.06.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
CUDA5.06.1

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.

M2000M 8.93
+51.9%
GeForce MX150 5.88

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 52% in our combined 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%

M2000M 3461
+51.9%
GeForce MX150 2279

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 52% 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: 17%

M2000M 20567
+87.1%
GeForce MX150 10992

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 87% 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: 17%

M2000M 5143
+14.4%
GeForce MX150 4494

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 14% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

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

Benchmark coverage: 14%

M2000M 4157
+19.2%
GeForce MX150 3488

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 19% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

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: 14%

M2000M 29795
+55.7%
GeForce MX150 19132

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 56% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

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%

M2000M 9528
+1.5%
GeForce MX150 9386

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 2% in GeekBench 5 OpenCL.

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%

M2000M 9145
+13.5%
GeForce MX150 8055

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 14% 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: 4%

M2000M 10438
+6.5%
GeForce MX150 9799

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 7% 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%

M2000M 53
+26.1%
GeForce MX150 42

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 26% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M2000M 36
+36.3%
GeForce MX150 26

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 36% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 maya-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M2000M 70
+188%
GeForce MX150 24

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 188% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 sw-03.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M2000M 33
+971%
GeForce MX150 3

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 971% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 snx-02.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M2000M 46
+171%
GeForce MX150 17

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 171% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 catia-04.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M2000M 40
+254%
GeForce MX150 11

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 254% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 creo-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M2000M 15
+42.7%
GeForce MX150 10

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 43% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 mediacal-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M2000M 22
+57.6%
GeForce MX150 14

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 58% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 showcase-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01

Benchmark coverage: 3%

M2000M 3
+540%
GeForce MX150 1

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 540% in SPECviewperf 12 - specvp12 energy-01.

SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M2000M 22
+57.6%
GeForce MX150 14

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 58% in SPECviewperf 12 - Showcase.

SPECviewperf 12 - Maya

This part of SPECviewperf 12 workstation benchmark uses Autodesk Maya 13 engine to render a superhero energy plant static scene consisting of more than 700 thousand polygons, in six different modes.

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M2000M 36
+36.3%
GeForce MX150 26

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 36% in SPECviewperf 12 - Maya.

SPECviewperf 12 - Catia

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M2000M 46
+171%
GeForce MX150 17

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 171% in SPECviewperf 12 - Catia.

SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M2000M 70
+188%
GeForce MX150 24

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 188% in SPECviewperf 12 - Solidworks.

SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M2000M 33
+971%
GeForce MX150 3

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 971% in SPECviewperf 12 - Siemens NX.

SPECviewperf 12 - Creo

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M2000M 40
+254%
GeForce MX150 11

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 254% in SPECviewperf 12 - Creo.

SPECviewperf 12 - Medical

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M2000M 15
+42.7%
GeForce MX150 10

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 43% in SPECviewperf 12 - Medical.

SPECviewperf 12 - Energy

Benchmark coverage: 2%

M2000M 3.2
+540%
GeForce MX150 0.5

Quadro M2000M outperforms GeForce MX150 by 540% in SPECviewperf 12 - Energy.

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 HD36
+33.3%
27
−33.3%
1440p35−40
+45.8%
24
−45.8%
4K11
−72.7%
19
+72.7%

Performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+0%
19
+0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Battlefield 5 30−33
−30%
39
+30%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+9.1%
22
−9.1%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+27.3%
11
−27.3%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+29.4%
17
−29.4%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+27.8%
18
−27.8%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+24%
25
−24%
Hitman 3 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+50%
12
−50%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+14.3%
14
−14.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+11.8%
17
−11.8%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+7.1%
14
−7.1%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+46.2%
13
−46.2%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Battlefield 5 30−33
−6.7%
32
+6.7%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 24−27
+243%
7
−243%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+100%
7
−100%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+37.5%
16
−37.5%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+35.3%
17
−35.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+47.6%
21
−47.6%
Hitman 3 21−24
+57.1%
14−16
−57.1%
Horizon Zero Dawn 18−20
+63.6%
10−12
−63.6%
Metro Exodus 12−14
+117%
6
−117%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+45.5%
10−12
−45.5%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18−20
+72.7%
11
−72.7%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 23
+21.1%
19
−21.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+36.4%
11
−36.4%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 18−20
+171%
7
−171%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14
+117%
6−7
−117%
Battlefield 5 30−33
+15.4%
26
−15.4%
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16
+40%
10−11
−40%
Far Cry 5 21−24
+57.1%
14
−57.1%
Far Cry New Dawn 21−24
+53.3%
15
−53.3%
Forza Horizon 4 30−35
+121%
14
−121%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 14
+27.3%
11
−27.3%
Watch Dogs: Legion 14−16
+66.7%
9−10
−66.7%

1440p
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
+44.4%
9−10
−44.4%
Hitman 3 14−16
+40%
10
−40%
Horizon Zero Dawn 14−16
+25%
12−14
−25%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+75%
4−5
−75%
Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 12−14
+33.3%
9−10
−33.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 8−9
+100%
4−5
−100%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%
Battlefield 5 14−16
+367%
3−4
−367%
Cyberpunk 2077 4−5
+33.3%
3−4
−33.3%
Far Cry 5 14−16
+55.6%
9−10
−55.6%
Far Cry New Dawn 14−16
+133%
6−7
−133%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
+77.8%
9−10
−77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 8−9
+60%
5−6
−60%
Watch Dogs: Legion 4−5
+300%
1−2
−300%

4K
High Preset

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 6−7
+50%
4−5
−50%
Hitman 3 8−9
+33.3%
6−7
−33.3%
Horizon Zero Dawn 8−9
+0%
8−9
+0%
Metro Exodus 3−4 0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 9
+350%
2−3
−350%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 5−6
+66.7%
3−4
−66.7%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 4−5
+100%
2−3
−100%
Battlefield 5 6−7
+500%
1−2
−500%
Cyberpunk 2077 1−2 0−1
Far Cry 5 7−8
+40%
5−6
−40%
Far Cry New Dawn 10−11
+25%
8−9
−25%
Forza Horizon 4 10−12
+120%
5−6
−120%
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
+100%
1−2
−100%

This is how M2000M and GeForce MX150 compete in popular games:

1080p resolution:

  • M2000M is 33.3% faster than GeForce MX150

1440p resolution:

  • M2000M is 45.8% faster than GeForce MX150

4K resolution:

  • GeForce MX150 is 72.7% faster than M2000M

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Battlefield 5, with 4K resolution and the Ultra Preset, the M2000M is 500% faster than the GeForce MX150.
  • in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 30% faster than the M2000M.

All in all, in popular games:

  • M2000M is ahead in 62 tests (94%)
  • GeForce MX150 is ahead in 2 tests (3%)
  • there's a draw in 2 tests (3%)

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 8.93 5.88
Recency 2 October 2015 16 May 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 55 Watt 25 Watt

The Quadro M2000M is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.

Be aware that Quadro M2000M is a mobile workstation card while GeForce MX150 is a mobile workstation one.


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

User ratings

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


NVIDIA Quadro M2000M
Quadro M2000M
NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150

Similar GPU comparisons

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

User ratings: view and submit

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


3.6 438 votes

Rate NVIDIA Quadro M2000M on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1504 votes

Rate NVIDIA GeForce MX150 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.