GeForce 8200 vs MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 with GeForce 8200, including specs and performance data.
MX150 outperforms 8200 by a whopping 1375% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 592 | 1256 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 40.61 | 0.69 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | C78 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 17 April 2007 (17 years ago) |
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 | 384 | 16 |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz | 500 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 210 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 40 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 4.000 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 0.0384 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 4 |
| TMUs | 24 | 8 |
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 | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCI |
| Width | no data | IGP |
| 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 | System Shared |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | System Shared |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | System Shared |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | System Shared |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | no data |
| Shared memory | - | no data |
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 | 1x DVI, 1x VGA, 1x S-Video |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 3.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | N/A |
| CUDA | 6.1 | - |
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.
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.
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 | 26
+2500%
| 1−2
−2500%
|
| 1440p | 28
+2700%
| 1−2
−2700%
|
| 4K | 20
+1900%
| 1−2
−1900%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 15
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+2600%
|
1−2
−2600%
|
| Valorant | 24
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Elden Ring | 13 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 42
+2000%
|
2−3
−2000%
|
| Fortnite | 29
+2800%
|
1−2
−2800%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
+1767%
|
3−4
−1767%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Valorant | 17
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| World of Tanks | 87
+1640%
|
5−6
−1640%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 62
+1450%
|
4−5
−1450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 19
+1800%
|
1−2
−1800%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Elden Ring | 5 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 43
+2050%
|
2−3
−2050%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| World of Tanks | 55
+1733%
|
3−4
−1733%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike 2 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Elden Ring | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| Metro Exodus | 1−2 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+1600%
|
1−2
−1600%
|
| World of Tanks | 30
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 24
+2300%
|
1−2
−2300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| Fortnite | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 5−6 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 5−6 | 0−1 |
This is how GeForce MX150 and GeForce 8200 compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 2500% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX150 is 2700% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX150 is 1900% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.90 | 0.40 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 17 April 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 80 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 40 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has a 1375% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 471.4% more advanced lithography process, and 300% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 8200 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook card while GeForce 8200 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
