Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile vs GeForce MX150

VS

Aggregate performance score

We've compared GeForce MX150 with RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, including specs and performance data.

GeForce MX150
2017
4 GB GDDR5, 10 Watt
5.88
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
2024
4 GB GDDR6, 35 Watt
27.27
+364%

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile outperforms MX150 by a whopping 364% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.

Place in the ranking588200
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Power efficiency41.0054.33
ArchitecturePascal (2016−2021)Ada Lovelace (2022−2024)
GPU code nameGP108AD107
Market segmentLaptopMobile workstation
Release date17 May 2017 (7 years ago)26 February 2024 (less than a year 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 cores3842048
Core clock speed937 MHz1485 MHz
Boost clock speed1038 MHz2025 MHz
Number of transistors1,800 million18,900 million
Manufacturing process technology14 nm5 nm
Power consumption (TDP)10 Watt35 Watt
Texture fill rate24.91129.6
Floating-point processing power0.7972 TFLOPS8.294 TFLOPS
ROPs1632
TMUs2464
Tensor Coresno data64
Ray Tracing Coresno data16

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 sizelargemedium sized
InterfacePCIe 3.0 x16PCIe 4.0 x8
Supplementary power connectorsNoneno 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 typeGDDR5GDDR6
Maximum RAM amount4 GB4 GB
Memory bus width64 Bit64 Bit
Memory clock speed1253 MHz2000 MHz
Memory bandwidth40.1 GB/s128.0 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 ConnectorsNo outputsPortable Device Dependent

API compatibility

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

DirectX12 (12_1)12 Ultimate (12_2)
Shader Model6.46.8
OpenGL4.64.6
OpenCL1.23.0
Vulkan1.2.1311.3
CUDA6.18.9

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
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 27.27
+364%

3DMark 11 Performance GPU

3DMark 11 is an obsolete DirectX 11 benchmark by Futuremark. It used four tests based on two scenes, one being few submarines exploring the submerged wreck of a sunken ship, the other is an abandoned temple deep in the jungle. All the tests are heavy with volumetric lighting and tessellation, and despite being done in 1280x720 resolution, are relatively taxing. Discontinued in January 2020, 3DMark 11 is now superseded by Time Spy.

GeForce MX150 4494
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 20239
+350%

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.

GeForce MX150 10992
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 66297
+503%

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.

GeForce MX150 3488
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 14136
+305%

3DMark Time Spy Graphics

GeForce MX150 1046
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile 5278
+405%

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 HD26
−362%
120−130
+362%
1440p26
−362%
120−130
+362%
4K18
−344%
80−85
+344%

FPS performance in popular games

Full HD
Low Preset

Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−350%
45−50
+350%

Full HD
Medium Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 19
−347%
85−90
+347%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Battlefield 5 26
−362%
120−130
+362%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 21
−352%
95−100
+352%
Cyberpunk 2077 11
−355%
50−55
+355%
Far Cry 5 20
−350%
90−95
+350%
Far Cry New Dawn 24
−358%
110−120
+358%
Forza Horizon 4 80
−338%
350−400
+338%
Hitman 3 12−14
−358%
55−60
+358%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100
−350%
450−500
+350%
Metro Exodus 23
−335%
100−105
+335%
Red Dead Redemption 2 27
−344%
120−130
+344%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 36
−344%
160−170
+344%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−360%
230−240
+360%

Full HD
High Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 21
−352%
95−100
+352%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Battlefield 5 18
−344%
80−85
+344%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−358%
55−60
+358%
Cyberpunk 2077 7
−329%
30−33
+329%
Far Cry 5 18
−344%
80−85
+344%
Far Cry New Dawn 9
−344%
40−45
+344%
Forza Horizon 4 71
−323%
300−310
+323%
Hitman 3 12−14
−358%
55−60
+358%
Horizon Zero Dawn 100
−350%
450−500
+350%
Metro Exodus 17
−341%
75−80
+341%
Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
−338%
70−75
+338%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 21
−352%
95−100
+352%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 52
−362%
240−250
+362%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−360%
230−240
+360%

Full HD
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 7
−329%
30−33
+329%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 12−14
−358%
55−60
+358%
Cyberpunk 2077 10−11
−350%
45−50
+350%
Far Cry 5 12
−358%
55−60
+358%
Forza Horizon 4 14
−329%
60−65
+329%
Hitman 3 12−14
−358%
55−60
+358%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
−338%
70−75
+338%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 16
−338%
70−75
+338%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 11
−355%
50−55
+355%
Watch Dogs: Legion 50−55
−360%
230−240
+360%

Full HD
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 16−18
−338%
70−75
+338%

1440p
High Preset

Battlefield 5 10−12
−355%
50−55
+355%
Far Cry New Dawn 9−10
−344%
40−45
+344%

1440p
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 6−7
−350%
27−30
+350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
Cyberpunk 2077 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Far Cry 5 7−8
−329%
30−33
+329%
Forza Horizon 4 16−18
−341%
75−80
+341%
Hitman 3 10−11
−350%
45−50
+350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 12−14
−362%
60−65
+362%
Metro Exodus 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 1−2
−300%
4−5
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
Watch Dogs: Legion 35−40
−347%
170−180
+347%

1440p
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 10−11
−350%
45−50
+350%

4K
High Preset

Battlefield 5 5−6
−320%
21−24
+320%
Far Cry New Dawn 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Hitman 3 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Horizon Zero Dawn 16
−338%
70−75
+338%
Metro Exodus 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%

4K
Ultra Preset

Assassin's Creed Odyssey 4−5
−350%
18−20
+350%
Assassin's Creed Valhalla 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%
Cyberpunk 2077 0−1 0−1
Far Cry 5 3−4
−300%
12−14
+300%
Forza Horizon 4 6−7
−350%
27−30
+350%
Shadow of the Tomb Raider 0−1 0−1
Watch Dogs: Legion 2−3
−350%
9−10
+350%

4K
Epic Preset

Red Dead Redemption 2 6−7
−350%
27−30
+350%

This is how GeForce MX150 and Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile compete in popular games:

  • Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is 362% faster in 1080p
  • Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is 362% faster in 1440p
  • Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is 344% faster in 4K

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 5.88 27.27
Recency 17 May 2017 26 February 2024
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 10 Watt 35 Watt

GeForce MX150 has 250% lower power consumption.

Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile, on the other hand, has a 363.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce MX150 in performance tests.

Be aware that GeForce MX150 is a notebook graphics card while RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile is a mobile workstation one.


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

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite graphics card.


NVIDIA GeForce MX150
GeForce MX150
Nvidia RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile
RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile

Comparisons with similar GPUs

We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.

Community ratings

Here you can see the user ratings of the compared graphics cards, as well as rate them yourself.


3.6 1617 votes

Rate GeForce MX150 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.4 17 votes

Rate RTX 500 Ada Generation Mobile on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about this comparison, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.