GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon HD 8550M
Aggregate performance score
Radeon HD 8550M outperforms GeForce GTS 150M by a small 9% based on our aggregated benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 955 | 992 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.06 | 0.07 |
| Architecture | GCN (2011−2017) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Sun | N10E-GE1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 November 2012 (11 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | $338 | $230 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTS 150M has 17% better value for money than HD 8550M.
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 | 64 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 64 |
| Core clock speed | 700 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 850 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 17.00 | 13 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 544.0 gflops | 128 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on Radeon HD 8550M 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 | medium sized | large |
| Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | 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 | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1800 MHz | Up to 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 14.4 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 | 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 (11_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | no data | + |
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 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Far Cry 5 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Battlefield 5, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the HD 8550M is 100% faster than the GTS 150M.
All in all, in popular games:
- HD 8550M is ahead in 7 tests (18%)
- there's a draw in 31 test (82%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.42 | 1.30 |
| Recency | 16 November 2012 | 2 March 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon HD 8550M and GeForce GTS 150M.
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.
