Arc A750 vs GeForce MX150

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX150 with Arc A750, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX150
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
5.88

Arc A750 outperforms MX150 by a whopping 429% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking588176
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data55.55
Power efficiency41.009.65
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Generation 12.7 (2022−2023)
GPU code nameGP108DG2-512
Market segmentLaptopDesktop
Release date17 May 2017 (7 years ago)12 October 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$289

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 cores3843584
Core clock speed937 MHz2050 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHz2400 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 million21,700 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm6 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt225 Watt
Texture fill rate24.91537.6
Floating-point processing power0.7972 TFLOPS17.2 TFLOPS
ROPs16112
TMUs24224
Tensor Coresno data448
Ray Tracing Coresno data28

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 sizelargeno data
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x16
Widthno data2-slot
Supplementary power connectorsNone1x 6-pin + 1x 8-pin

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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB8 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit256 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s512.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputs1x HDMI 2.1, 3x DisplayPort 2.0
HDMI-+

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.6
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.1-

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.

GeForce MX150 5.88
Arc A750 31.13
+429%

Passmark

This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. 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.

GeForce MX150 2270
Arc A750 12009
+429%

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.

GeForce MX150 4494
Arc A750 37288
+730%

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.

GeForce MX150 10992
Arc A750 98837
+799%

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.

GeForce MX150 3488
Arc A750 29667
+751%

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.

GeForce MX150 19132
Arc A750 130715
+583%

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.

GeForce MX150 223740
Arc A750 634482
+184%

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.

GeForce MX150 42
Arc A750 98837
+236352%

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 HD26
−323%
110
+323%
1440p26
−127%
59
+127%
4K18
−100%
36
+100%

Cost per frame, $

1080pno data2.63
1440pno data4.90
4Kno data8.03

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−400%
50−55
+400%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
−226%
62
+226%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−1186%
90
+1186%
Battlefield 5 26
−442%
140−150
+442%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21
−319%
85−90
+319%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−400%
55−60
+400%
Far Cry 5 20
−360%
90−95
+360%
Far Cry New Dawn 24
−350%
100−110
+350%
Forza Horizon 4 80
−153%
200−210
+153%
Hitman 3 12−14
−683%
90−95
+683%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100
−78%
170−180
+78%
Metro Exodus 23
−526%
144
+526%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27
−267%
95−100
+267%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 36
−358%
160−170
+358%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−170%
130−140
+170%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21
−405%
106
+405%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−986%
76
+986%
Battlefield 5 18
−683%
140−150
+683%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−633%
85−90
+633%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
−400%
35−40
+400%
Far Cry 5 18
−411%
90−95
+411%
Far Cry New Dawn 9
−1100%
100−110
+1100%
Forza Horizon 4 71
−185%
200−210
+185%
Hitman 3 12−14
−683%
90−95
+683%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100
−78%
170−180
+78%
Metro Exodus 17
−741%
143
+741%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
−519%
95−100
+519%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21
−1038%
239
+1038%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
−75%
90−95
+75%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−170%
130−140
+170%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
−543%
45
+543%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−886%
69
+886%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−633%
85−90
+633%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−400%
50−55
+400%
Far Cry 5 12
−667%
90−95
+667%
Forza Horizon 4 14
−543%
90
+543%
Hitman 3 12−14
−683%
90−95
+683%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
−606%
113
+606%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
−1144%
199
+1144%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−527%
69
+527%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−26%
63
+26%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
−519%
95−100
+519%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
−682%
85−90
+682%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−644%
65−70
+644%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−533%
38
+533%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−5300%
54
+5300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−940%
50−55
+940%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−367%
14−16
+367%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−629%
50−55
+629%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−1306%
230−240
+1306%
Hitman 3 10−11
−480%
55−60
+480%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−608%
92
+608%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−1620%
86
+1620%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
−14400%
145
+14400%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−1040%
57
+1040%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−437%
200−210
+437%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−660%
75−80
+660%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−800%
45−50
+800%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−850%
35−40
+850%
Hitman 3 2−3
−1700%
35−40
+1700%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
−1113%
190−200
+1113%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−2567%
80
+2567%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−3350%
69
+3350%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−600%
28
+600%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−1400%
30
+1400%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−1350%
27−30
+1350%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
−767%
24−27
+767%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−917%
61
+917%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 84
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−1400%
30
+1400%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−567%
40−45
+567%

This is how GeForce MX150 and Arc A750 compete in popular games:

  • Arc A750 is 323% faster in 1080p
  • Arc A750 is 127% faster in 1440p
  • Arc A750 is 100% faster in 4K

Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:

  • in Shadow of the Tomb Raider, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the Arc A750 is 14400% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

  • Without exception, Arc A750 surpassed GeForce MX150 in all 65 of our tests.

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.88 31.13
Recency 17 May 2017 12 October 2022
Maximum RAM amount 4 GB 8 GB
Chip lithography 14 nm 6 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 225 Watt

GeForce MX150 has 2150% lower power consumption.

Arc A750, on the other hand, has a 429.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 133.3% more advanced lithography process.

The Arc A750 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook card while Arc A750 is a desktop 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.


NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150
Intel Arc A750
Arc A750

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.


3.6 1617 votes

Rate GeForce MX150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 810 votes

Rate Arc A750 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.