GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon HD 6550M

Place in the ranking	1019	1035
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Power efficiency	3.63	2.00
Architecture	TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)	Tesla (2006−2010)
GPU code name	Lexington	G94
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	26 November 2010 (14 years ago)	3 March 2009 (15 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	400	64
Core clock speed	600 MHz	400 MHz
Number of transistors	2,154 million	505 million
Manufacturing process technology	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	26 Watt	45 Watt
Texture fill rate	12.00	12.80
Floating-point processing power	0.48 TFLOPS	0.128 TFLOPS
Gigaflops	no data	192
ROPs	8	16
TMUs	20	32

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	medium sized	large
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	MXM-II	PCIe 2.0 x16
SLI options	-	2-way
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	DDR3	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	1 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	128 Bit	256 Bit
Memory clock speed	900 MHz	Up to 800 MHz
Memory bandwidth	28.8 GB/s	51 GB/s
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	DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536
Audio input for HDMI	no data	S/PDIF

Supported technologies

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

Power management

no data

8.0

API compatibility

List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.

DirectX	11.2 (11_0)	11.1 (10_0)
Shader Model	5.0	4.0
OpenGL	4.4	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
Vulkan	N/A	N/A
CUDA	-	+

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:

900p	14 +16.7%	12−14 −16.7%
Full HD	18 +12.5%	16−18 −12.5%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Fortnite	6−7 +20%	5−6 −20%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Metro Exodus	0−1	0−1
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%
Red Dead Redemption 2	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	7−8 +0%	7−8 +0%
World of Tanks	27−30 +3.6%	27−30 −3.6%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	10−11 +0%	10−11 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	4−5 +0%	4−5 +0%
Dota 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Far Cry 5	10−12 +10%	10−11 −10%
Forza Horizon 4	9−10 +0%	9−10 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	14−16 +7.1%	14−16 −7.1%

1440p
High Preset

PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
World of Tanks	8−9 +14.3%	7−8 −14.3%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Counter-Strike 2	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +0%	3−4 +0%
Far Cry 5	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Forza Horizon 5	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +0%	5−6 +0%
Valorant	6−7 +0%	6−7 +0%

4K
High Preset

Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Grand Theft Auto V	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS	4−5 +33.3%	3−4 −33.3%
Red Dead Redemption 2	0−1	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Counter-Strike 2	8−9 +0%	8−9 +0%
Cyberpunk 2077	2−3 +0%	2−3 +0%
Dota 2	14−16 +0%	14−16 +0%
Far Cry 5	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%
Valorant	1−2 +0%	1−2 +0%

This is how HD 6550M and GTS 150M compete in popular games:

HD 6550M is 17% faster in 900p
HD 6550M is 13% faster in 1080p

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

in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 4K resolution and the High Preset, the HD 6550M is 33% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

HD 6550M is ahead in 8 tests (18%)
there's a draw in 36 tests (82%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	1.37	1.31
Recency	26 November 2010	3 March 2009
Chip lithography	40 nm	65 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	26 Watt	45 Watt

HD 6550M has a 4.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, a 62.5% more advanced lithography process, and 73.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 6550M and GeForce GTS 150M.

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