GeForce GTS 350M vs MX150

Place in performance ranking	586	1097
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	GT2xx (2009−2012)
GPU code name	N17S-G1	n11e-ge1
Market segment	Laptop	Laptop
Release date	16 May 2017 (7 years ago)	7 January 2010 (14 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	96
CUDA cores	no data	96
Core clock speed	1468 MHz	500 MHz
Boost clock speed	1532 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,800 million	727 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP)	28 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.91	16.00
Floating-point performance	0.7972 gflops	0.24 gflops
Gigaflops	no data	360

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	large
Bus support	no data	PCI-E 2.0
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	MXM-II
Supplementary power connectors	None	no data
SLI options	-	+
MXM Type	no data	MXM 3.0 Type-B

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	GDDR3
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	6008 MHz	Up to 2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	51.2 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	DisplayPortLVDSHDMIDual Link DVISingle Link DVIVGA
HDMI	-	+
Maximum VGA resolution	no data	2048x1536

Supported technologies

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

Power management

no data

8.0

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	11.1 (10_1)
Shader Model	6.4	4.1
OpenGL	4.6	2.1
OpenCL	1.2	1.1
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.

GeForce MX150 5.89
+461%

GTS 350M 1.05

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.

GeForce MX150 2274
+459%

GTS 350M 407

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 +600%	4−5 −600%
1440p	29 +480%	5−6 −480%
4K	19 +533%	3−4 −533%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077

10−11
+233%

3−4

−233%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	19 +280%	5−6 −280%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Battlefield 5	26 +550%	4−5 −550%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21 +425%	4−5 −425%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	20 +1900%	1−2 −1900%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +1100%	2−3 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	80	0−1
Hitman 3	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +669%	12−14 −669%
Metro Exodus	23 +475%	4−5 −475%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +2600%	1−2 −2600%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +414%	7−8 −414%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +56.3%	30−35 −56.3%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21 +320%	5−6 −320%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Battlefield 5	18 +500%	3−4 −500%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +133%	3−4 −133%
Far Cry 5	18 +1700%	1−2 −1700%
Far Cry New Dawn	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	71	0−1
Hitman 3	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +669%	12−14 −669%
Metro Exodus	17 +467%	3−4 −467%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +1500%	1−2 −1500%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21 +200%	7−8 −200%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +373%	10−12 −373%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +56.3%	30−35 −56.3%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +40%	5−6 −40%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +200%	4−5 −200%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry 5	12 +1100%	1−2 −1100%
Forza Horizon 4	14	0−1
Hitman 3	12−14 +140%	5−6 −140%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +23.1%	12−14 −23.1%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +129%	7−8 −129%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +0%	10−12 +0%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +56.3%	30−35 −56.3%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18
+1500%

1−2

−1500%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +1000%	1−2 −1000%
Far Cry New Dawn	9−10 +800%	1−2 −800%

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	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	3−4 +200%	1−2 −200%
Far Cry 5	7−8 +600%	1−2 −600%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +467%	3−4 −467%
Hitman 3	10−11 +42.9%	7−8 −42.9%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +225%	4−5 −225%
Metro Exodus	5−6	0−1
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	1−2	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	5−6	0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion	35−40 +850%	4−5 −850%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

10−11
+150%

4−5

−150%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5	5−6	0−1
Far Cry New Dawn	4−5	0−1
Hitman 3	2−3	0−1
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +700%	2−3 −700%
Metro Exodus	3−4	0−1
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	2−3	0−1

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	4−5 +300%	1−2 −300%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	2−3	0−1
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	2−3	0−1
Cyberpunk 2077	0−1	0−1
Far Cry 5	3−4	0−1
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
+200%

2−3

−200%

This is how GeForce MX150 and GTS 350M compete in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is 600% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX150 is 480% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX150 is 533% faster in 4K

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

in Red Dead Redemption 2, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 2600% faster.

All in all, in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is ahead in 42 tests (98%)
there's a draw in 1 test (2%)

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.89	1.05
Recency	16 May 2017	7 January 2010
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	1 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	40 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	25 Watt	28 Watt

GeForce MX150 has a 461% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 300% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 185.7% more advanced lithography process, and 12% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 350M in performance tests.

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