GeForce 6150 LE vs Radeon R5 M255
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R5 M255 with GeForce 6150 LE, including specs and performance data.
R5 M255 outperforms 6150 LE by a whopping 1513% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 1064 | 1531 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | GCN 3.0 (2014−2019) | Curie (2003−2013) |
| GPU code name | Topaz | C51 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 12 October 2014 (11 years ago) | 11 October 2004 (21 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 | 384 | no data |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 925 MHz | 425 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 940 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,550 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 90 nm |
| Texture fill rate | 22.56 | 0.43 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7219 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 8 | 1 |
| TMUs | 24 | 1 |
| L1 Cache | 96 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
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).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 x8 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCI |
| Width | no data | IGP |
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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1000 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 16 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | + |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| PowerTune | + | - |
| DualGraphics | + | - |
| ZeroCore | + | - |
| Switchable graphics | + | - |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 11 | 9.0c (9_3) |
| Shader Model | 6.3 | 3.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | N/A |
| Vulkan | - | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.
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 | 21
+2000%
| 1−2
−2000%
|
| Full HD | 13 | 0−1 |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 26
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 6 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 10 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 30−33
+2900%
|
1−2
−2900%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 5 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 8 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 4 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 30−35
+1600%
|
2−3
−1600%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 4−5 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3−4 | 0−1 |
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Grand Theft Auto V | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 7−8 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra
| Dota 2 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 2−3 | 0−1 |
This is how R5 M255 and 6150 LE compete in popular games:
- R5 M255 is 2000% faster in 900p
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.29 | 0.08 |
| Recency | 12 October 2014 | 11 October 2004 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 90 nm |
R5 M255 has a 1512.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, and a 221.4% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon R5 M255 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 6150 LE in performance tests.
Be aware that Radeon R5 M255 is a notebook graphics card while GeForce 6150 LE is a desktop one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
