FirePro M5950 vs GeForce MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 with FirePro M5950, including specs and performance data.
GeForce MX150 outperforms FirePro M5950 by an impressive 73% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in performance ranking | 586 | 729 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Terascale 2 (2009−2015) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G1 | Whistler-XT |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 16 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 13 April 2011 (13 years ago) |
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 | 384 | 480 |
| Core clock speed | 1468 MHz | 725 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1532 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 716 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP) | 35 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 17.40 |
| Floating-point performance | 0.7972 gflops | 0.696 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 | large | medium sized |
| Bus support | no data | n/a |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | MXM-A (3.0) |
| Form factor | no data | MXM-A |
| Supplementary power connectors | None | 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 128 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 900 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 57 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 Connectors | No outputs | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.2 (11_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 5.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.4 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| 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.
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.
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.
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 | 28
+7.7%
| 26
−7.7%
|
| 1440p | 29
+81.3%
| 16−18
−81.3%
|
| 4K | 19
+90%
| 10−12
−90%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
+90%
|
10−11
−90%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+271%
|
7−8
−271%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21
+163%
|
8−9
−163%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+186%
|
7−8
−186%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+321%
|
18−20
−321%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100
+317%
|
24−27
−317%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 36
+157%
|
14−16
−157%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+22%
|
40−45
−22%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+157%
|
7−8
−157%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 71
+274%
|
18−20
−274%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100
+317%
|
24−27
−317%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+240%
|
5−6
−240%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21
+50%
|
14−16
−50%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 52
+247%
|
14−16
−247%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+22%
|
40−45
−22%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+250%
|
2−3
−250%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
−35.7%
|
18−20
+35.7%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
−50%
|
24−27
+50%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16
+14.3%
|
14−16
−14.3%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−36.4%
|
14−16
+36.4%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+22%
|
40−45
−22%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+80%
|
5−6
−80%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 6−7
+100%
|
3−4
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+62.5%
|
8−9
−62.5%
|
| Metro Exodus | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+81%
|
21−24
−81%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
+77.8%
|
9−10
−77.8%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
This is how GeForce MX150 and FirePro M5950 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 8% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX150 is 81% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX150 is 90% faster in 4K
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1440p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 1600% faster.
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the FirePro M5950 is 50% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is ahead in 58 tests (92%)
- FirePro M5950 is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.89 | 3.41 |
| Recency | 16 May 2017 | 13 April 2011 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 1 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 35 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has a 72.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 40% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the FirePro M5950 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook graphics card while FirePro M5950 is a mobile workstation 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.
