GeForce GT 640M LE vs MX150

Place in the ranking	588	916
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.05
Power efficiency	40.99	4.01
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Fermi (2010−2014)
GPU code name	GP108	GF108
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	17 May 2017 (7 years ago)	4 May 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$849.99

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 cores	384	Up to 384
Core clock speed	937 MHz	Up to 500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1038 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,800 million	585 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	20 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.91	12.05
Floating-point processing power	0.7972 TFLOPS	0.289 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	4
TMUs	24	16

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	PCI Express 2.0, PCI Express 3.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
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	DDR3\DDR5
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	785 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	Up to 28.8 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
HDMI	-	+
HDCP	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	Up to 2048x1536

Supported technologies

Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.

3D Blu-Ray	-	+
Optimus	-	+

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 API
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.5
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
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.

GeForce MX150 5.88
+220%

GT 640M LE 1.84

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
+220%

GT 640M LE 709

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
+257%

GT 640M LE 1259

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
+89.9%

GT 640M LE 5788

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.

GeForce MX150 9614
+310%

GT 640M LE 2344

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GeForce MX150 8259
+269%

GT 640M LE 2240

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:

900p	60−65 +216%	19 −216%
Full HD	26 +30%	20 −30%
1440p	26 +225%	8−9 −225%
4K	18 +260%	5−6 −260%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	42.50
1440p	no data	106.25
4K	no data	170.00

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11
+150%

4−5

−150%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +171%	7−8 −171%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Battlefield 5	26 +2500%	1−2 −2500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21 +320%	5−6 −320%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +175%	4−5 −175%
Far Cry 5	20 +567%	3−4 −567%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +380%	5−6 −380%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +1043%	7−8 −1043%
Hitman 3	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +488%	16−18 −488%
Metro Exodus	23 +229%	7−8 −229%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +575%	4−5 −575%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +300%	9−10 −300%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +42.9%	35−40 −42.9%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21 +200%	7−8 −200%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Battlefield 5	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +75%	4−5 −75%
Far Cry 5	18 +500%	3−4 −500%
Far Cry New Dawn	9 +80%	5−6 −80%
Forza Horizon 4	71 +914%	7−8 −914%
Hitman 3	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +488%	16−18 −488%
Metro Exodus	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21 +133%	9−10 −133%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +333%	12−14 −333%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +42.9%	35−40 −42.9%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +0%	7−8 +0%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +150%	4−5 −150%
Far Cry 5	12 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +100%	7−8 −100%
Hitman 3	12−14 +100%	6−7 −100%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 −6.3%	16−18 +6.3%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +77.8%	9−10 −77.8%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 −9.1%	12−14 +9.1%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +42.9%	35−40 −42.9%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18
+300%

4−5

−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +450%	2−3 −450%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +200%	3−4 −200%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	1−2	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Hitman 3	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +160%	5−6 −160%
Metro Exodus	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +280%	10−11 −280%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+100%

5−6

−100%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6 +400%	1−2 −400%
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +220%	5−6 −220%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1

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	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Forza Horizon 4	6−7 +500%	1−2 −500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	0−1	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	2−3	0−1

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

6−7
+100%

3−4

−100%

This is how GeForce MX150 and GT 640M LE compete in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is 216% faster in 900p
GeForce MX150 is 30% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX150 is 225% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX150 is 260% faster in 4K

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

in Battlefield 5, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 2500% faster.
in The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GT 640M LE is 9% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is ahead in 50 tests (94%)
GT 640M LE is ahead in 2 tests (4%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.88	1.84
Recency	17 May 2017	4 May 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	20 Watt

GeForce MX150 has a 219.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 100% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GT 640M LE in performance tests.

Should you still have questions concerning choice between the reviewed GPUs, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.