GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon HD 8250
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon HD 8250 and GeForce GTS 150M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GTS 150M outperforms HD 8250 by a whopping 134% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 1174 | 992 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.07 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Temash | N10E-GE1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | $501 | $230 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
HD 8250 and GTS 150M have a nearly equal value for money.
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 | 128 | 64 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 300 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 400 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 3.200 | 13 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | no data | 128 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 8250 and GeForce GTS 150M 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 size | no data | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | IGP | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| SLI options | no data | 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 | System Shared | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | System Shared | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | System Shared | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | System Shared | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | no data | 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 | no data | + |
| 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 graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 GTS 150M outperforms Radeon HD 8250 by 134% 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 GTS 150M outperforms Radeon HD 8250 by 132% in Passmark.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | no data |
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | no data |
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | no data |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14 | no data |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8 | no data |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | no data |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 9−10 | no data |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5 | no data |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2 | no data |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | no data |
| Hitman 3 | 6−7 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 3−4 | no data |
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4 | no data |
4K
High Preset
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2 | no data |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2 | no data |
| Metro Exodus | 4−5 | no data |
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3 | no data |
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4
−133%
|
7−8
+133%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
−100%
|
4−5
+100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
−100%
|
2−3
+100%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.56 | 1.31 |
| Recency | 1 June 2013 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 8 Watt | 45 Watt |
The GeForce GTS 150M is our recommended choice as it beats the Radeon HD 8250 in performance tests.
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.
