GeForce GTX 260M SLI vs MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 and GeForce GTX 260M SLI, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
GeForce MX150 outperforms GTX 260M SLI by an impressive 79% 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 | 741 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | G9x (2007−2010) |
GPU code name | N17S-G1 | NB9E-GTX |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 16 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 2 March 2009 (15 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 | 224 |
Core clock speed | 1468 MHz | 550 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 1532 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 1508 Million |
Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 55 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP) | 150 Watt |
Texture fill rate | 24.91 | no data |
Floating-point performance | 0.7972 gflops | no data |
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 |
Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | no data |
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 | GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 950 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | no data |
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 data |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 10 |
Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
OpenGL | 4.6 | no data |
OpenCL | 1.2 | no data |
Vulkan | 1.2.131 | - |
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.
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.
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
+100%
| 14−16
−100%
|
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
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Battlefield 5 | 26
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21
+200%
|
7−8
−200%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
Far Cry 5 | 20
+233%
|
6−7
−233%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+167%
|
9−10
−167%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+371%
|
16−18
−371%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 100
+335%
|
21−24
−335%
|
Metro Exodus | 23
+475%
|
4−5
−475%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+238%
|
8−9
−238%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 36
+177%
|
12−14
−177%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21
+110%
|
10−11
−110%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Battlefield 5 | 18
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Far Cry 5 | 18
+200%
|
6−7
−200%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 9
+0%
|
9−10
+0%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 71
+318%
|
16−18
−318%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 100
+335%
|
21−24
−335%
|
Metro Exodus | 17
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21
+61.5%
|
12−14
−61.5%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 52
+271%
|
14−16
−271%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
−42.9%
|
10−11
+42.9%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+71.4%
|
7−8
−71.4%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+66.7%
|
6−7
−66.7%
|
Far Cry 5 | 12
+100%
|
6−7
−100%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 14
−21.4%
|
16−18
+21.4%
|
Hitman 3 | 12−14
+50%
|
8−9
−50%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
−43.8%
|
21−24
+43.8%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16
+23.1%
|
12−14
−23.1%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
−27.3%
|
14−16
+27.3%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+25%
|
40−45
−25%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+120%
|
5−6
−120%
|
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
+150%
|
2−3
−150%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+75%
|
4−5
−75%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+88.9%
|
9−10
−88.9%
|
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
+100%
|
18−20
−100%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+42.9%
|
7−8
−42.9%
|
4K
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Hitman 3 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
+100%
|
8−9
−100%
|
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
+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
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 6−7
+50%
|
4−5
−50%
|
This is how GeForce MX150 and GTX 260M SLI compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 100% 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 Assassin's Creed Valhalla, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the GeForce MX150 is 600% faster.
- in Horizon Zero Dawn, with 1080p resolution and the Ultra Preset, the GTX 260M SLI is 44% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is ahead in 57 tests (92%)
- GTX 260M SLI is ahead in 4 tests (6%)
- there's a draw in 1 test (2%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 5.89 | 3.29 |
Recency | 16 May 2017 | 2 March 2009 |
Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 2 GB |
Chip lithography | 14 nm | 55 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt | 150 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has a 79% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 292.9% more advanced lithography process, and 500% lower power consumption.
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260M SLI in performance tests.
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.