GeForce MX150 vs GTX 460 SE
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce GTX 460 SE with GeForce MX150, including specs and performance data.
GeForce MX150 outperforms GTX 460 SE by a moderate 14% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 616 | 586 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.12 | no data |
| Architecture | Fermi (2010−2014) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GF104 | N17S-G1 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Laptop |
| Release date | 15 November 2010 (13 years ago) | 16 May 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $160 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance to price ratio. The higher, the better.
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 | 288 | 384 |
| CUDA cores | 288 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 650 MHz | 1468 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1532 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,950 million | 1,800 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP) |
| Maximum GPU temperature | 104 °C | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 31.20 | 24.91 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.7488 gflops | 0.7972 gflops |
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 | no data | large |
| Bus support | 16x PCI-E 2.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 2.0 x16 | PCIe 3.0 x16 |
| Length | 210 mm | no data |
| Height | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) | no data |
| Width | 2-slot | no data |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2x 6-pin | None |
| SLI options | + | - |
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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1700 MHz | 6008 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 108.8 GB/s | 40.1 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.
| Number of display connectors | 2 | no data |
| Display Connectors | 2 x Dual-Link DVI-I1 x Mini HDMI | No outputs |
| Multi monitor support | + | no data |
| HDMI | + | - |
| Maximum VGA resolution | 2048x1536 | no data |
| Audio input for HDMI | Internal | no data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (11_0) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.1 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | N/A | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | + | 6.1 |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 OpenCL
Geekbench 5 is a widespread graphics card benchmark combined from 11 different test scenarios. All these scenarios rely on direct usage of GPU's processing power, no 3D rendering is involved. This variation uses OpenCL API by Khronos Group.
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 | 24−27
−16.7%
| 28
+16.7%
|
| 1440p | 27−30
−18.5%
| 32
+18.5%
|
| 4K | 14−16
−21.4%
| 17
+21.4%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
+0%
|
19
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+0%
|
26
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+0%
|
20
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+0%
|
24
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+0%
|
80
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
+0%
|
23
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+0%
|
27
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 36
+0%
|
36
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+0%
|
18
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9
+0%
|
9
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 71
+0%
|
71
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100
+0%
|
100
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+0%
|
17
+0%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21
+0%
|
21
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 52
+0%
|
52
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
+0%
|
7
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+0%
|
12
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
+0%
|
14
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+0%
|
11
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+0%
|
50−55
+0%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+0%
|
10−12
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+0%
|
16−18
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+0%
|
12−14
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+0%
|
35−40
+0%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+0%
|
10−11
+0%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+0%
|
5−6
+0%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
+0%
|
16
+0%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+0%
|
2−3
+0%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
This is how GTX 460 SE and GeForce MX150 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 17% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX150 is 19% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX150 is 21% faster in 4K
All in all, in popular games:
- there's a draw in 70 tests (100%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.19 | 5.90 |
| Recency | 15 November 2010 | 16 May 2017 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 1 GB | 4 GB |
| Chip lithography | 40 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 25 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has a 13.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 500% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 460 SE in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce GTX 460 SE 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.
Comparisons with similar GPUs
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
