ATI Mobility Radeon vs GeForce MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 with Mobility Radeon, including specs and performance data.
GeForce MX150 outperforms ATI Mobility by a whopping 340% 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 | 1026 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Rage 6 (2000−2007) |
| GPU code name | N17S-G1 | M6 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop |
| Release date | 16 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 1 December 2001 (22 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 | no data |
| Core clock speed | 1468 MHz | 144 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1532 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 30 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 180 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 25 Watt (10 - 25 Watt TGP) | no data |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 0.43 |
| 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 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | AGP 4x |
| 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 | DDR |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 MB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 64 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 6008 MHz | 288 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 2.304 GB/s |
| 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 | No outputs |
API compatibility
List of supported graphics and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 7.0 |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | no data |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 1.3 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | N/A |
| 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.
3DMark Fire Strike Graphics
Fire Strike is a DirectX 11 benchmark for gaming PCs. It features two separate tests displaying a fight between a humanoid and a fiery creature made of lava. Using 1920x1080 resolution, Fire Strike shows off some realistic graphics and is quite taxing on hardware.
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
+367%
| 6−7
−367%
|
| 1440p | 29
+383%
| 6−7
−383%
|
| 4K | 19
+375%
| 4−5
−375%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 19
+375%
|
4−5
−375%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 26
+420%
|
5−6
−420%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 21
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 20
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 24
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 80
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100
+376%
|
21−24
−376%
|
| Metro Exodus | 23
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
+350%
|
6−7
−350%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 36
+350%
|
8−9
−350%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 21
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Battlefield 5 | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 18
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 71
+344%
|
16−18
−344%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 100
+376%
|
21−24
−376%
|
| Metro Exodus | 17
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 21
+425%
|
4−5
−425%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 52
+420%
|
10−11
−420%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 14
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| Hitman 3 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 16
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 11
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Watch Dogs: Legion | 50−55
+400%
|
10−11
−400%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 9−10
+350%
|
2−3
−350%
|
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 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16−18
+467%
|
3−4
−467%
|
| Hitman 3 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 12−14
+550%
|
2−3
−550%
|
| 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
+375%
|
8−9
−375%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
4K
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
+400%
|
1−2
−400%
|
| Far Cry New Dawn | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Hitman 3 | 2−3 | 0−1 |
| Horizon Zero Dawn | 16
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Metro Exodus | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 2−3 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| 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
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
This is how GeForce MX150 and ATI Mobility compete in popular games:
- GeForce MX150 is 367% faster in 1080p
- GeForce MX150 is 383% faster in 1440p
- GeForce MX150 is 375% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.89 | 1.34 |
| Recency | 16 May 2017 | 1 December 2001 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 16 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 180 nm |
GeForce MX150 has a 339.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 15 years, a 25500% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 1185.7% more advanced lithography process.
The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the Mobility Radeon in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook card while Mobility Radeon is a desktop 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.
