Quadro P3200 Max-Q vs GeForce MX150
Aggregate performance score
We've compared GeForce MX150 with Quadro P3200 Max-Q, including specs and performance data.
P3200 Max-Q outperforms MX150 by a whopping 301% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 600 | 246 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Power efficiency | 40.62 | 21.69 |
| Architecture | Pascal (2016−2021) | Pascal (2016−2021) |
| GPU code name | GP108 | GP104 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Mobile workstation |
| Release date | 17 May 2017 (7 years ago) | 21 February 2018 (6 years ago) |
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 | 1792 |
| Core clock speed | 937 MHz | 1139 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1038 MHz | 1404 MHz |
| Number of transistors | 1,800 million | 7,200 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 75 Watt |
| Texture fill rate | 24.91 | 157.2 |
| Floating-point processing power | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 5.032 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 16 | 64 |
| TMUs | 24 | 112 |
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 | MXM-B (3.0) |
| 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 | GDDR5 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Memory bus width | 64 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 1253 MHz | 1753 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 40.1 GB/s | 168.3 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 |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | 12 (12_1) | 12 (12_1) |
| Shader Model | 6.4 | 6.4 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 4.6 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2.131 | 1.2.131 |
| CUDA | 6.1 | 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.
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.
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
−285%
| 100−110
+285%
|
| 1440p | 28
−293%
| 110−120
+293%
|
| 4K | 20
−300%
| 80−85
+300%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 15
−300%
|
60−65
+300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27
−270%
|
100−105
+270%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 18
−289%
|
70−75
+289%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 27
−270%
|
100−105
+270%
|
| Valorant | 24
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 21
−281%
|
80−85
+281%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 40
−300%
|
160−170
+300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 42
−281%
|
160−170
+281%
|
| Fortnite | 29
−279%
|
110−120
+279%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 21
−281%
|
80−85
+281%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 26
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Metro Exodus | 11
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 56
−293%
|
220−230
+293%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 16−18
−282%
|
65−70
+282%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
−286%
|
85−90
+286%
|
| Valorant | 17
−282%
|
65−70
+282%
|
| World of Tanks | 87
−245%
|
300−310
+245%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 14
−293%
|
55−60
+293%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Dota 2 | 62
−287%
|
240−250
+287%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 26
−285%
|
100−105
+285%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 16
−275%
|
60−65
+275%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 19
−295%
|
75−80
+295%
|
| Valorant | 18−20
−295%
|
75−80
+295%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 43
−295%
|
170−180
+295%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| World of Tanks | 55
−300%
|
220−230
+300%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 10−11
−300%
|
40−45
+300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
−275%
|
45−50
+275%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 10−12
−264%
|
40−45
+264%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 8−9
−275%
|
30−33
+275%
|
| Metro Exodus | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 9−10
−289%
|
35−40
+289%
|
| Valorant | 16−18
−275%
|
60−65
+275%
|
4K
High Preset
| Dota 2 | 16−18
−282%
|
65−70
+282%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
−282%
|
65−70
+282%
|
| Metro Exodus | 0−1 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 21
−281%
|
80−85
+281%
|
| Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
−300%
|
16−18
+300%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
−282%
|
65−70
+282%
|
| World of Tanks | 30
−300%
|
120−130
+300%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 2−3
−300%
|
8−9
+300%
|
| Dota 2 | 24
−296%
|
95−100
+296%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 7−8
−286%
|
27−30
+286%
|
| Fortnite | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 6−7
−300%
|
24−27
+300%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 3−4
−300%
|
12−14
+300%
|
| Valorant | 5−6
−260%
|
18−20
+260%
|
This is how GeForce MX150 and P3200 Max-Q compete in popular games:
- P3200 Max-Q is 285% faster in 1080p
- P3200 Max-Q is 293% faster in 1440p
- P3200 Max-Q is 300% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 5.66 | 22.67 |
| Recency | 17 May 2017 | 21 February 2018 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 6 GB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 16 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 10 Watt | 75 Watt |
GeForce MX150 has a 14.3% more advanced lithography process, and 650% lower power consumption.
P3200 Max-Q, on the other hand, has a 300.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 months, and a 50% higher maximum VRAM amount.
The Quadro P3200 Max-Q is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.
Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook graphics card while Quadro P3200 Max-Q is a mobile workstation one.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
