GeForce GTS 150M vs Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge)
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) and GeForce GTS 150M, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 (Bristol Ridge) outperforms GTS 150M by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
Place in the ranking | 893 | 1023 |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Power efficiency | 3.00 | 2.02 |
Architecture | GCN 1.2 (2016) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
GPU code name | Bristol Ridge | G94 |
Market segment | Laptop | Laptop |
Release date | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 3 March 2009 (15 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 | 512 | 64 |
Core clock speed | no data | 400 MHz |
Boost clock speed | 900 MHz | no data |
Number of transistors | 2410 Million | 505 million |
Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 12-45 Watt | 45 Watt |
Texture fill rate | no data | 12.80 |
Floating-point processing power | no data | 0.128 TFLOPS |
Gigaflops | no data | 192 |
ROPs | no data | 16 |
TMUs | no data | 32 |
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 | medium sized | large |
Bus support | no data | PCI-E 2.0 |
Interface | no data | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
SLI options | - | 2-way |
MXM Type | no data | MXM 3.0 Type-B |
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 | no data | GDDR3 |
Maximum RAM amount | no data | 1 GB |
Memory bus width | 64/128 Bit | 256 Bit |
Memory clock speed | no data | Up to 800 MHz |
Memory bandwidth | no data | 51 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 data | DisplayPortHDMIDual Link DVILVDSSingle Link DVIVGA |
HDMI | - | + |
Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
Power management | no data | 8.0 |
API compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
DirectX | 12 (FL 12_0) | 11.1 (10_0) |
Shader Model | no data | 4.0 |
OpenGL | no data | 2.1 |
OpenCL | no data | 1.1 |
Vulkan | - | N/A |
CUDA | - | + |
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.
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 | 13
+62.5%
| 8−9
−62.5%
|
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+6.1%
|
30−35
−6.1%
|
Full HD
High Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Battlefield 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 5−6
+66.7%
|
3−4
−66.7%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 15
+36.4%
|
10−12
−36.4%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+6.1%
|
30−35
−6.1%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 7−8
+16.7%
|
6−7
−16.7%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5
+0%
|
4−5
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Forza Horizon 4 | 8−9
+300%
|
2−3
−300%
|
Hitman 3 | 6−7
+0%
|
6−7
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 16−18
+21.4%
|
14−16
−21.4%
|
Shadow of the Tomb Raider | 10−11
+25%
|
8−9
−25%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14
+9.1%
|
10−12
−9.1%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 35−40
+6.1%
|
30−35
−6.1%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 4−5
+100%
|
2−3
−100%
|
1440p
High Preset
Battlefield 5 | 3−4
+200%
|
1−2
−200%
|
Far Cry New Dawn | 3−4
+50%
|
2−3
−50%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Cyberpunk 2077 | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Far Cry 5 | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Hitman 3 | 7−8
+0%
|
7−8
+0%
|
Horizon Zero Dawn | 6−7
+20%
|
5−6
−20%
|
The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Watch Dogs: Legion | 10−12
+83.3%
|
6−7
−83.3%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 5−6
+25%
|
4−5
−25%
|
4K
High Preset
Far Cry New Dawn | 1−2 | 0−1 |
4K
Ultra Preset
Assassin's Creed Odyssey | 2−3
+100%
|
1−2
−100%
|
Assassin's Creed Valhalla | 1−2
+0%
|
1−2
+0%
|
Call of Duty: Modern Warfare | 0−1 | 0−1 |
Far Cry 5 | 1−2 | 0−1 |
Watch Dogs: Legion | 0−1 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic Preset
Red Dead Redemption 2 | 3−4
+0%
|
3−4
+0%
|
This is how R7 (Bristol Ridge) and GTS 150M compete in popular games:
- R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 63% faster in 1080p
Here's the range of performance differences observed across popular games:
- in Forza Horizon 4, with 1080p resolution and the Medium Preset, the R7 (Bristol Ridge) is 300% faster.
All in all, in popular games:
- R7 (Bristol Ridge) is ahead in 36 tests (75%)
- there's a draw in 12 tests (25%)
Pros & cons summary
Performance score | 1.95 | 1.31 |
Recency | 1 June 2016 | 3 March 2009 |
Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 12 Watt | 45 Watt |
R7 (Bristol Ridge) has a 48.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 275% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 (Bristol Ridge) is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTS 150M 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.