GeForce MX150 vs Radeon RX 480

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

RX 480
2016
8 GB GDDR5, 150 Watt
22.33
+278%

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by a whopping 278% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in performance ranking230557
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation11.411.14
ArchitecturePolaris (2016−2019)Pascal (2016−2021)
GPU code namePolaris 10 EllesmereN17S-G1
GCN generation4th Genno data
Market segmentDesktopLaptop
Designreferenceno data
Release date29 June 2016 (7 years ago)16 May 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$229 no data
Current price$174 (0.8x MSRP)$1049

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.

RX 480 has 901% better value for money than GeForce MX150.

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 cores2304384
Compute units36no data
Core clock speed1120 MHz1468 MHz
Boost clock speed1266 MHz1532 MHz
Number of transistors5,700 million1,800 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm14 nm
Power consumption (TDP)150 Watt25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)
Texture fill rate182.324.91
Floating-point performance5,834 gflops1,127 gflops

Form factor & compatibility

Information on Radeon RX 480 and GeForce MX150 compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop video cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility). 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 sizeno datalarge
Bus supportn/ano data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 3.0 x16
Length241 mmno data
Width2-slotno data
Supplementary power connectors1x 6-pinNone
Bridgeless CrossFire1no data

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 amount8 GB4 GB
Memory bus width256 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed8000 MHz6008 MHz
Memory bandwidth224 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 Connectors1x HDMI, 3x DisplayPortNo outputs
Eyefinity1no data
HDMI2.0no data
DisplayPort support1.4HDRno data

Supported technologies

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

AppAccelerationn/ano data
CrossFire1no data
Enduron/ano data
FRTC1no data
FreeSync+no data
HD3Dn/ano data
LiquidVR1no data
PowerTune+no data
TressFX1no data
TrueAudion/ano data
ZeroCore+no data
UVD+no data
VCE+no data

API compatibility

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

DirectXDirectX® 1212 (12_1)
Shader Model6.46.4
OpenGL4.54.6
OpenCL2.01.2
Vulkan+1.2.131
Mantlen/ano data
CUDAno data6.1

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.

RX 480 22.33
+278%
GeForce MX150 5.90

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 278% 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%

RX 480 8623
+279%
GeForce MX150 2278

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 279% in Passmark.

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

RX 480 17919
+299%
GeForce MX150 4494

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 299% in 3DMark 11 Performance GPU.

3DMark Vantage Performance

3DMark Vantage is an outdated DirectX 10 benchmark using 1280x1024 screen resolution. It taxes the graphics card with two scenes, one depicting a girl escaping some militarized base located within a sea cave, the other displaying a space fleet attack on a defenseless planet. It was discontinued in April 2017, and Time Spy benchmark is now recommended to be used instead.

Benchmark coverage: 17%

RX 480 39552
+260%
GeForce MX150 10992

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 260% in 3DMark Vantage Performance.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RX 480 12186
+249%
GeForce MX150 3488

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 249% in 3DMark Fire Strike Graphics.

3DMark Cloud Gate GPU

Cloud Gate is an outdated DirectX 11 feature level 10 benchmark that was used for home PCs and basic notebooks. It displays a few scenes of some weird space teleportation device launching spaceships into unknown, using fixed resolution of 1280x720. Just like Ice Storm benchmark, it has been discontinued in January 2020 and replaced by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 14%

RX 480 72213
+277%
GeForce MX150 19132

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 277% in 3DMark Cloud Gate GPU.

3DMark Ice Storm GPU

Ice Storm Graphics is an obsolete benchmark, part of 3DMark suite. Ice Storm was used to measure entry level laptops and Windows-based tablets performance. It utilizes DirectX 11 feature level 9 to display a battle between two space fleets near a frozen planet in 1280x720 resolution. Discontinued in January 2020, it is now superseded by 3DMark Night Raid.

Benchmark coverage: 8%

RX 480 383333
+71.3%
GeForce MX150 223740

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 71% in 3DMark Ice Storm GPU.

Unigine Heaven 3.0

This is an old DirectX 11 benchmark using Unigine, a 3D game engine by eponymous Russian company. It displays a fantasy medieval town sprawling over several flying islands. Version 3.0 was released in 2012, and in 2013 it was superseded by Heaven 4.0, which introduced several slight improvements, including a newer version of Unigine.

Benchmark coverage: 4%

RX 480 132
+216%
GeForce MX150 42

Radeon RX 480 outperforms GeForce MX150 by 216% in Unigine Heaven 3.0.

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 HD82
+193%
28
−193%
1440p57
+90%
30
−90%
4K36
+71.4%
21
−71.4%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 no data

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 58 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40 no data
Battlefield 5 70−75 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 no data
Far Cry 5 50−55 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 55−60 no data
Forza Horizon 4 100 no data
Hitman 3 45−50 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90 no data
Metro Exodus 93 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70 no data

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 49 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40 no data
Battlefield 5 48 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 no data
Far Cry 5 50−55 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 31 no data
Forza Horizon 4 95−100 no data
Hitman 3 45−50 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90 no data
Metro Exodus 39 no data
Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 78 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70 no data

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 35 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 35−40 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 45−50 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 35−40 no data
Far Cry 5 45 no data
Forza Horizon 4 77 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 85−90 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 75−80 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 44 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 65−70 no data

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 60−65 no data

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 65 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 50 no data

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21−24 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 21−24 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 27−30 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 14−16 no data
Far Cry 5 35−40 no data
Forza Horizon 4 40−45 no data
Hitman 3 24−27 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 45−50 no data
Metro Exodus 50 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 45−50 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27−30 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 16−18 no data

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 35−40 no data

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 31 no data
Far Cry New Dawn 21 no data
Hitman 3 16−18 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27 no data
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 18 no data
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 27 no data

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 17 no data
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 12−14 no data
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14 no data
Cyberpunk 2077 5−6 no data
Far Cry 5 15 no data
Forza Horizon 4 30−35 no data
Horizon Zero Dawn 24−27 no data
Metro Exodus 26 no data
Watch Dogs: Legion 9−10 no data

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 18−20 no data

This is how RX 480 and GeForce MX150 compete in popular games:

  • RX 480 is 193% faster in 1080p
  • RX 480 is 90% faster in 1440p
  • RX 480 is 71% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 22.33 5.90
Recency 29 June 2016 16 May 2017
Maximum RAM amount 8 GB 4 GB
Power consumption (TDP) 150 Watt 25 Watt

The Radeon RX 480 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.

Be aware that Radeon RX 480 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 RX 480
Radeon RX 480
NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150

Comparisons with similar GPUs

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.


4.2 1656 votes

Rate Radeon RX 480 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 1549 votes

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.