GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon R5 M335
Aggregated performance score
Radeon R5 M335 outperforms GeForce GTS 150M by 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 | 951 | 988 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation | 0.02 | 0.07 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | G9x (2007−2010) |
| GPU code name | Exo XT DDR3 | N10E-GE1 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 16 June 2015 (8 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 years ago) |
| Current price | $891 | $230 |
Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
GTS 150M has 250% better value for money than R5 M335.
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 | 320 | 64 |
| CUDA cores | no data | 64 |
| Compute units | 5 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1070 MHz | 400 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1070 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 690 million | 505 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 55 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | unknown | 45 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 21.40 | 13 billion/sec |
| Floating-point performance | 684.8 gflops | 128 gflops |
| Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
Form Factor & Compatibility
Information on Radeon R5 M335 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 | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x8 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | no data |
| SLI options | no data | 2-way |
| MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
| Memory type | DDR3 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1100 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 GPU Technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | - | no data |
| Enduro | - | no data |
| HD3D | + | no data |
| PowerTune | + | no data |
| DualGraphics | 1 | no data |
| TrueAudio | - | no data |
| ZeroCore | + | no data |
| Switchable graphics | 1 | no data |
| Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API Compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.0 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.4 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | Not Listed | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | no data |
| 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.
Radeon R5 M335 outperforms GeForce GTS 150M by 9% based on our aggregated 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%
Radeon R5 M335 outperforms GeForce GTS 150M by 9% in Passmark.
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 HD | 11
+10%
| 10−12
−10%
|
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 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 10−11
+11.1%
|
9−10
−11.1%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+33.3%
|
3−4
−33.3%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 6
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Battlefield 5 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 3
−33.3%
|
4−5
+33.3%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 8−9
+0%
|
8−9
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
This is how R5 M335 and GTS 150M compete in popular games:
- R5 M335 is 10% faster than GTS 150M in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Hitman 3, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R5 M335 is 100% faster than the GTS 150M.
- in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTS 150M is 33.3% faster than the R5 M335.
All in all, in popular games:
- R5 M335 is ahead in 8 tests (28%)
- GTS 150M is ahead in 1 test (3%)
- there's a draw in 20 tests (69%)
Pros & Cons Summary
| Performance score | 1.42 | 1.30 |
| Recency | 16 June 2015 | 2 March 2009 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 55 nm |
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Radeon R5 M335 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.
