GeForce MX150 vs Radeon R7 265

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared Radeon R7 265 with GeForce MX150, including specs and performance data.

R7 265
2014
4 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
10.45
+77.1%

R7 265 outperforms MX150 by an impressive 77% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking438592
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation5.24no data
Power efficiency4.8040.71
ArchitectureGCN 1.0 (2011−2020)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code namePitcairnGP108
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date13 February 2014 (10 years ago)17 May 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$149 no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

no data

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 cores1024384
Core clock speedno data937 MHz
Boost clock speed925 MHz1038 MHz
Number of transistors2,800 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology28 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt10 Watt
Texture fill rate59.2024.91
Floating-point processing power1.894 TFLOPS0.7972 TFLOPS
ROPs3216
TMUs6424

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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportPCIe 3.0no data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length210 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1 x 6-pinNone

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 typeGDDR5GDDR5
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1400 MHz1253 MHz
Memory bandwidth179.2 GB/s40.1 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 Connectors2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity+-
HDMI+-

Supported technologies

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

CrossFire+-
FreeSync+-
DDMA audio+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model5.16.4
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.21.2
Vulkan-1.2.131
CUDA-6.1

Synthetic benchmark performance

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. 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.

R7 265 10.45
+77.1%
GeForce MX150 5.90

3DMark Fire Strike Graphics

Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.

R7 265 5220
+49.7%
GeForce MX150 3488

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 HD45−50
+73.1%
26
−73.1%
1440p45−50
+60.7%
28
−60.7%
4K35−40
+75%
20
−75%

Cost per frame, $

1080p3.31no data
1440p3.31no data
4K4.26no data

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Elden Ring 14−16
+0%
14−16
+0%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Battlefield 5 15
+0%
15
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 9
+0%
9
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 27
+0%
27
+0%
Metro Exodus 18
+0%
18
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27
+0%
27
+0%
Valorant 24
+0%
24
+0%

Full HD
High Preset

Battlefield 5 21
+0%
21
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 3
+0%
3
+0%
Dota 2 40
+0%
40
+0%
Elden Ring 13
+0%
13
+0%
Far Cry 5 42
+0%
42
+0%
Fortnite 29
+0%
29
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 21
+0%
21
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 26
+0%
26
+0%
Metro Exodus 11
+0%
11
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 56
+0%
56
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 22
+0%
22
+0%
Valorant 17
+0%
17
+0%
World of Tanks 87
+0%
87
+0%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 14
+0%
14
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Dota 2 62
+0%
62
+0%
Far Cry 5 26
+0%
26
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 16
+0%
16
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 19
+0%
19
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

1440p
High Preset

Dota 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Elden Ring 5
+0%
5
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 6−7
+0%
6−7
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 43
+0%
43
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
World of Tanks 55
+0%
55
+0%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Counter-Strike 2 9−10
+0%
9−10
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Far Cry 5 12−14
+0%
12−14
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 10−11
+0%
10−11
+0%
Metro Exodus 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Valorant 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%

4K
High Preset

Dota 2 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Elden Ring 3−4
+0%
3−4
+0%
Grand Theft Auto V 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
Metro Exodus 1−2
+0%
1−2
+0%
PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS 21
+0%
21
+0%
Red Dead Redemption 2 4−5
+0%
4−5
+0%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 16−18
+0%
16−18
+0%
World of Tanks 30
+0%
30
+0%

4K
Ultra Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Cyberpunk 2077 2−3
+0%
2−3
+0%
Dota 2 24
+0%
24
+0%
Far Cry 5 7−8
+0%
7−8
+0%
Fortnite 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Forza Horizon 4 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%
Valorant 5−6
+0%
5−6
+0%

This is how R7 265 and GeForce MX150 compete in popular games:

  • R7 265 is 73% faster in 1080p
  • R7 265 is 61% faster in 1440p
  • R7 265 is 75% faster in 4K

All in all, in popular games:

  • there's a draw in 62 tests (100%)

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.45 5.90
Recency 13 February 2014 17 May 2017
Chip lithography 28 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 10 Watt

R7 265 has a 77.1% higher aggregate performance score.

GeForce MX150, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 1400% lower power consumption.

The Radeon R7 265 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon R7 265 is a desktop card while GeForce MX150 is a notebook one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


AMD Radeon R7 265
Radeon R7 265
NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150

Other comparisons

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.1 373 votes

Rate Radeon R7 265 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 1651 vote

Rate GeForce MX150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.