GeForce Go 6150 vs Radeon RX 580 Mobile
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon RX 580 Mobile and GeForce Go 6150, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
580 Mobile outperforms Go 6150 by a whopping 35960% 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 | 337 | 1541 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 8.12 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 13.90 | no data |
| Architecture | GCN 4.0 (2016−2020) | no data |
| GPU code name | Polaris 20 | C51MV |
| Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
| Release date | 18 April 2017 (8 years ago) | 1 February 2006 (19 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $301.69 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
Performance to price scatter graph
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 | 2304 | 3 |
| Core clock speed | 1000 MHz | 1 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1077 MHz | 425 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 5,700 million | no data |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 110 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 100 Watt | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 155.1 | no data |
| Floating-point processing power | 4.963 TFLOPS | no data |
| ROPs | 32 | no data |
| TMUs | 144 | no data |
| L1 Cache | 576 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 2 MB | 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).
| Laptop size | large | no data |
| Interface | MXM-B (3.0) | no 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 type | GDDR5 | shared Memory |
| Maximum RAM amount | 8 GB | no data |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | no data |
| Memory clock speed | 2000 MHz | no data |
| Memory bandwidth | 256.0 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 data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_0) | shared Memory |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | no data |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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 | 77 | -0−1 |
| 4K | 30 | -0−1 |
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.92 | no data |
| 4K | 10.06 | no data |
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 183 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 69
+1050%
|
6−7
−1050%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+488%
|
24−27
−488%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 100−110 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 220−230
+2411%
|
9−10
−2411%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 76
+986%
|
7−8
−986%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 81 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 55−60 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 62 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 57
+850%
|
6−7
−850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 68
+1260%
|
5−6
−1260%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+488%
|
24−27
−488%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 75−80 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 35−40 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 69
+886%
|
7−8
−886%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 70−75 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 75−80
+3650%
|
2−3
−3650%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 41
+583%
|
6−7
−583%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 37
+640%
|
5−6
−640%
|
| Valorant | 140−150
+488%
|
24−27
−488%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 60 | 0−1 |
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 35−40
+1750%
|
2−3
−1750%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 130−140 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 24−27 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 160−170
+16800%
|
1−2
−16800%
|
| Valorant | 170−180 | 0−1 |
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 35−40
+3800%
|
1−2
−3800%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 40−45 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+4500%
|
1−2
−4500%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 27−30
+2700%
|
1−2
−2700%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 40−45 | 0−1 |
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 30−35
+143%
|
14−16
−143%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 24 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 100−110
+10400%
|
1−2
−10400%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 16−18 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 60−65 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 18−20 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 30−35 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 14
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 18−20
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS, with 1440p resolution and the High Preset, the RX 580 Mobile is 16800% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- Without exception, RX 580 Mobile surpassed Go 6150 in all 23 of our tests.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 18.03 | 0.05 |
| Recency | 18 April 2017 | 1 February 2006 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 110 nm |
RX 580 Mobile has a 35960% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and a 685.7% more advanced lithography process.
The Radeon RX 580 Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce Go 6150 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
