NVS 510 vs GeForce MX150

Place in the ranking	588	918
Place by popularity	not in top-100	not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation	no data	0.07
Power efficiency	40.99	3.56
Architecture	Pascal (2016−2021)	Kepler (2012−2018)
GPU code name	GP108	GK107
Market segment	Laptop	Workstation
Release date	17 May 2017 (7 years ago)	23 October 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)	no data	$449

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	192
Core clock speed	937 MHz	797 MHz
Boost clock speed	1038 MHz	no data
Number of transistors	1,800 million	1,270 million
Manufacturing process technology	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	35 Watt
Texture fill rate	24.91	12.75
Floating-point processing power	0.7972 TFLOPS	0.306 TFLOPS
ROPs	16	16
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	no data
Interface	PCIe 3.0 x16	PCIe 2.0 x16
Length	no data	160 mm
Width	no data	1-slot
Supplementary power connectors	None	None

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
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Memory bus width	64 Bit	128 Bit
Memory clock speed	1253 MHz	891 MHz
Memory bandwidth	40.1 GB/s	28.51 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

4x mini-DisplayPort

API compatibility

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

DirectX	12 (12_1)	12 (11_0)
Shader Model	6.4	5.1
OpenGL	4.6	4.6
OpenCL	1.2	1.2
Vulkan	1.2.131	1.1.126
CUDA	6.1	3.0

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
+228%

NVS 510 1.79

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
+228%

NVS 510 692

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 9611
+463%

NVS 510 1706

GeekBench 5 Vulkan

GeForce MX150 8259
+342%

NVS 510 1868

GeekBench 5 CUDA

GeForce MX150 9799
+664%

NVS 510 1282

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 +271%	7−8 −271%
1440p	26 +271%	7−8 −271%
4K	18 +260%	5−6 −260%

Cost per frame, $

1080p	no data	64.14
1440p	no data	64.14
4K	no data	89.80

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 +250%	2−3 −250%
Battlefield 5	26 +271%	7−8 −271%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	21 +250%	6−7 −250%
Cyberpunk 2077	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
Far Cry 5	20 +233%	6−7 −233%
Far Cry New Dawn	24 +243%	7−8 −243%
Forza Horizon 4	80 +233%	24−27 −233%
Hitman 3	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +233%	30−33 −233%
Metro Exodus	23 +229%	7−8 −229%
Red Dead Redemption 2	27 +238%	8−9 −238%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	36 +260%	10−11 −260%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +257%	14−16 −257%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	21 +250%	6−7 −250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Battlefield 5	18 +260%	5−6 −260%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	7 +250%	2−3 −250%
Far Cry 5	18 +260%	5−6 −260%
Far Cry New Dawn	9 +350%	2−3 −350%
Forza Horizon 4	71 +238%	21−24 −238%
Hitman 3	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	100 +233%	30−33 −233%
Metro Exodus	17 +240%	5−6 −240%
Red Dead Redemption 2	16−18 +300%	4−5 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	21 +250%	6−7 −250%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	52 +271%	14−16 −271%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +257%	14−16 −257%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey	7 +250%	2−3 −250%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla	7−8 +250%	2−3 −250%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Cyberpunk 2077	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Far Cry 5	12 +300%	3−4 −300%
Forza Horizon 4	14 +250%	4−5 −250%
Hitman 3	12−14 +300%	3−4 −300%
Horizon Zero Dawn	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider	16 +300%	4−5 −300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt	11 +267%	3−4 −267%
Watch Dogs: Legion	50−55 +257%	14−16 −257%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2

16−18

+300%

4−5
−300%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5	10−12 +267%	3−4 −267%
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 +250%	2−3 −250%
Forza Horizon 4	16−18 +240%	5−6 −240%
Hitman 3	10−11 +233%	3−4 −233%
Horizon Zero Dawn	12−14 +333%	3−4 −333%
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

+233%

3−4
−233%

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 +300%	4−5 −300%
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
+500%

1−2

−500%

This is how GeForce MX150 and NVS 510 compete in popular games:

GeForce MX150 is 271% faster in 1080p
GeForce MX150 is 271% faster in 1440p
GeForce MX150 is 260% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary

Performance score	5.88	1.79
Recency	17 May 2017	23 October 2012
Maximum RAM amount	4 GB	2 GB
Chip lithography	14 nm	28 nm
Power consumption (TDP)	10 Watt	35 Watt

GeForce MX150 has a 228.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, a 100% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 250% lower power consumption.

The GeForce MX150 is our recommended choice as it beats the NVS 510 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook card while NVS 510 is a workstation one.

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